Talk:Douglas Murray (author): Difference between revisions

Links to the far right - heading or subheading under "views"

As a number of editors have repeatedly stressed on the talk page, a wealth of academic and journalistic evidence links Murray ideology to the far right (including the far-right Eurabia conspiracy theory), the alt-right, the white nationalist right or some combination thereof - this is not a fringe theory but the academic CONSENSUS about Murray[1][2][3][4] This material absolutely deserves either its own heading or a subheading under "views". If I don't hear any pushback against the inclusion of such a heading/subheading, I'll add one in the next day or so. Looking forward to hearing input from other editors Noteduck (talk) 01:48, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

First attempt made! Feedback welcome Noteduck (talk) 02:51, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I oppose any article level edits until you propose the edits here. What is not acceptable is simply a section titled "Far-right ideology" or similar followed by a list of sentences more or less of the form, "[Author] says Murray/Murray's book is/shares far-right/alt-right/white nationalist ideas". Rather such a section needs to actually say what the ideas/views are first then say who/why they are far-right/alt-right etc. The latter actually tells the reader what the views are and allows them to see the evidence that lead others to apply labels. The former method is simply a list of labels from people most readers will have never heard of. Springee (talk) 02:52, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Your first attempt was exactly what I was concerned about. I oppose the section as written. Springee (talk) 02:55, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Springee I didn't see this until I had written up the section. I disagree that it's "a mess" and think that it takes a reasonable, editorially neutral stance on the well-documented ideological links Murray has to the far right. I'm happy for any substantive commentary, additions or edits, but I reject the contention that the subheading should be removed in its entirety Noteduck (talk) 03:46, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Given the timing it was perfectly reasonable to have missed my comment. I say mess for several reasons. First, you have added the same citations to the article multiple times. There are proper ways to do multiple references to the same source. This is, if you will, an under the hood problem. Since I didn't go back into this to see if all the sources were the same as last time I'm not sure if we would agree that all the sources are usable but for the moment I will assume they are. The big surface problem is that you are telling, not showing. As a reader I can see that a source thinks Murray has an alt-right view. OK, which view? The end of the article says Murray is gay. Is his (presumed) support of gay rights the alt-right view? A constant BLP problem on wikipedia is sources that use what might be called throw away labels. This is something even a quality source might do. A common way this plays out is a highly respected source runs an article on a topic (say a new finance bill). The reporter will, somewhere in the article introduce an opponent of the bill, "conservative economist Dr X opposes the new bill". So then we have the NYT saying Dr X is a conservative. Now the article on Dr X the economist is changed to "Dr X the conservative economist". The latter sentence may be true but the reader doesn't know why and the NYT article didn't support why. Take something like opposition to immigration. There are many reasons why people say they oppose immigration and the issue gets more cloudy when illegal vs legal immigration get mixed in. Second example, a NYT article says Dr X is an immigration opponent. Is that because Dr X opposes all forms of immigration, illegal immigration, the current immigration quotas per country, etc. That section reads like the intent is to vilify rather than inform. I would suggest reading this recent discussion with regards to NPOV. It's not a resolution rather just shows what a number of editors are concerned about. [[5]] Springee (talk) 04:14, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Springee I think your use of "vilify" is unfair. I've reported what many (I believe are now 10+ academic sources in this subheading) sources have said about Murray and have maintained editorial neutrality throughout. If you believe the material that I've included should be reworded or altered, feel free to make suggestions. While I haven't found any DIRECT rebuttals by Murray in relation to his purported far-right leanings, I've included no less than three articles by him which make clear his opinion that the term has lost all meaning. If there are respectable third-party sources saying something like "it is totally erroneous to connect Murray to the far right" they should also be included, and feel free to look for them. Noteduck (talk) 04:27, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

by the way, I think it might be good to have an additional subheading "criticism of Islam" under "views". His strident criticism of Islam is kind of lumped in with a lot of other stuff. Happy to see your edits/hear your input on this Springee Noteduck (talk) 04:31, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Vilify is a reasonable term. It may not be your intent but per the VP discussion it is often seen that way. I don't think you will often find direct rebuttals to such claims. Many sources will simply remain mute on the subject but rarely are they going to say, that source was wrong when it used this label. As for the actual text, I think you should review WP:ONUS. That material is a mess. I don't see that a whole subsection devoted to just saying people have applied a label to a BLP subject is worth including and you haven't shown what others have asked for, showing what the sources actually say rather than just the label they contain. A section discussing and summarizing his views on Islam would be fine. It should not be yet another section with a large number of variations of "source X says his views are Islamophobic". Instead, something like "Murray has said X about Islam. [These sources] support/oppose this view [because]." Again we show, not just tell. Springee (talk) 04:41, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I've got another concern, and this is more generalized. In a number of edits you have said things like "Murray [or other] is often/frequently..." Terms like often and frequently are subjective. How often is often? Is it an absolute number or just a percentage? Unless a source says that we shouldn't. Also, as a general rule (and this may not apply here) if a number of sources are criticizing someone like Murray but one source has a unique criticism of him, then we should be careful in deciding if that is DUE. Another frequent pitfall of Wiki articles is they turn into a dumping ground of every negative thing an editor can find about the subject. Wiki articles are meant to wp:SUMMARY, not be a complete history. Springee (talk) 05:11, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

establishing when to use qualifiers like "sometimes", "often", "frequently" etc isn't easy. In terms of controversial topics, the Wiki for Tommy Robinson cites six sources(note that all are journalistic, none academic) to justify the claim he is "far-right" and "anti-Islam", On the page for Armenian Genocide denial, ten academic sources are listed as "evidence for the killings". I haven't counted, but I believe this page has collected at least 10 academic sources making some kind of connection between Murray and the far right. Frankly, I believe this page is exceptionally conservative in not referring to an academic "consensus" of any kind. Noteduck (talk) 05:49, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

That is why we should simply not use them. Many people do but I've also seen many examples of debates about their use. The best course is to not use them. Springee (talk) 06:06, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

This section is still a mess and needs to be cleaned up. Springee (talk) 11:12, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree, I also think we have gone from one extreme to the other - from understating how controversial Murray is and why, to including every accusation against him, somewhat regardless of the WEIGHT of the source. Pincrete (talk) 12:00, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Several IP editors have removed this section. Some of the sources are good and probably should be included in the article but this section, as written, really should be removed and started over. I don't think there ever was consensus for it's inclusion, at least not in this form. Springee (talk) 20:53, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

"Some of the sources are good" -- implies that some are not. Which ones? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:11, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Up the page I've discussed a number of the sources that are problematic. I also think the "proximate" to the far right needs to go from the lead and be redone in the article body. The material that people have been edit warring recently was, in my view, added to justify including a statement in the lead. Anyway, I wanted to see if others had an idea how to better integrate this materail. As Pincrete said, the article went from perhaps too gentile with the subject to looking like a pure hit peace. If you do a web search for some BLP subjects it's very clear they are considered "not good" rather quickly. That doesn't seem to be the case with Murray (whom I really hadn't heard of just over a month back). Even in the case of some of the sources here it seems the editor who added them was focusing on the most negative quotes thus the material in the Wikipedia article looks more scathing than the source. Other times we have sources that just say, "the far/alt right like this guy" and it's presented here as if he is specifically catering to the far right fringe. Such associations were quite effective when the pro-Vietnam interventionists associated those who felt the war was a bad idea for practical reasons with "druggie-hippy beatniks". This feels similar and I'm sure we can improve it without people feeling it's a simple whitewash/blackwash. Springee (talk) 00:00, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Agree; I'm saddened but not surprised this character assassination of a centrist writer for the criminal act of writing about social-activist extremism is still up. A demonstration of the bias of Wikipedia if ever there was one. Conan The Librarian (talk) 06:57, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Not many "centrist writers" suggest Mosques should be pulled down, defend the EDL, are looked upon as too divisive by the UK Conservative party for it to be associated with - nor are gay atheists speaking of the need for Europeans to defend traditional European Christian values (which until very recently had no place for either gays or atheists) from marauding hordes of Muslim rapists, fanatics and murderers.

Fundamentally what you are saying is that you know better than journalists and academics what beliefs Murray has espoused - that's called WP:OR. I'm the first to say that some of the criticism at present is not necessarily well-written may not be using the best sources, and may be over-weighted, but the idea that Murray is not HIGHLY controversial is 'head-in-the sand' time IMO. Pincrete (talk) 09:33, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

That you need to misrepresent or decontextualise even his most provocative comments is telling. And let's be clear that by "journalists and academics" you are mostly talking about activists using their positions to push their very non-centrist agenda. Yes he's provocative and controversial; that's his job as a front-line counter to the ideologues referenced in the various sources used to suppress his voice by describing him as "proximate to far right", which cowardly description is proximate to "far right". Honestly, it's disgusting. Conan The Librarian (talk) 17:27, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Do me a favour please! Let's just stick to the sources and rendering them accurately and neutrally. Murray's voice is hardly suppressed and whatever low opinion you have of his critics, they have the same right to speak as he does and a lot of people find Murray repellent. I'm not aware of having misrepresented anything about him, certainly not in the article. Pincrete (talk) 18:40, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I could not see any example in these very serious academic studies of any criticism of Islam, which is not considered Islamophobic. Can you please give us an example of any criticism of Islam, which is acceptable and considered valid (to you, or to these academics, or anybody who is in charge of public opinion) and will not bring accusations of racism, xenophobia, etc? Out of sequence comment left unsigned by IP - 07:05, 3 July 2021

• If you have sources describing him otherwise (especially high-quality academic ones to match the breath and depth of the sources describing his well-established ideological affiliation with the far-right) you should present them so we can assess which sources are best and how they disagree. But I'm really not seeing any reputable independent sources describing him as "centrist". The sources in the article are both generally high-quality academic ones and pretty strongly-worded (eg. Murray has writtenpassionately in support of British fascist Tommy Robinson (Murray, 2018) and describesIslam as an “opportunistic infection” (Hasan, 2013) linked to the “strange death of Europe”(Murray, 2017a). Murray’s ideas are not only entangled with the far-right (working class orotherwise), but with wider social connections.) --Aquillion (talk) 19:19, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

SK2242, Conan The Librarian's removal[[6]] is heavy handed but to be honest, this is disputed text and there has never been a consensus for inclusion. As such it really should be left out until we can come up with a consensus text (WP:NOCON). I tend to think some of the sources are good but others are not and the way it is being used in the article is not acceptable. It would be best if the content was pulled then sorted out. Springee (talk) 17:47, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Whatever sources you think are bad you can pull the sentences citing them now and we can work from there (or remove the whole section for now if policy says so). I’m neutral on this anyway. SK2242 (talk) 18:01, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I think we can anticipate that any wholesale removal will (rightly) be reverted. We are more likely to make progress if there is discussion intended to achieve limited changes. I will happily participate in that. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:21, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Even though policy says removal in the case of no consensus, I agree it's likely the end would be something between total removal and include as is. It's probably best to figure out that middle ground. I may put some time into that later today. Springee (talk) 18:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Springee, you know that consensus is not unanimity. You've been on Wiki forever and you know you can't just say "remove because there's no consensus". You're welcome to make a RfC or take some other route of dispute resolution. There is nothing on the page that doesn't reflect the mainstream academic view of Murray. As I've indicated above, the standard of evidence that we've used on this page is much higher than that on, for example, Tommy Robinson's page. If there are academic sources saying "Murray is a misunderstood centrist", they should be included too. Noteduck (talk) 23:22, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Noteduck, please stop adding this material again until consensus is reached. We need to be cautious around labeling someone, per BLP etc. // Hippo43 (talk) 00:20, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Rather than have people edit war over this content, I've started a RfC. Hopefully this will let us find some middle ground. The current far-right section in the body has undue weight and IIRC from the earlier discussions, contains some questionable sources (the overall article definitely does) or at least sources used in a questionably way. The proper way to do this would be fix the body part of the article which is too long winded and conspiratorial as well as containing subjective statements like "A number of academic and journalistic sources have..." and "Murray is often perceived as...". Springee (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

// Hippo43 and Conan The Librarian, you haven't made a serious attempt to challenge the inclusion of this material on policy grounds, which is why I've restored it for now. If "labeling" is the problem Hippo, why have you kept the more flattering descriptions of Murray as a conservative, neo-con and critic of Islam which are based on far fewer and less reliable sources? Springee and Hippo, despite the claims of "weak sources" you haven't made a concrete challenge to any of the sources included. If you want to challenge material, come up with strong, policy-based rebuttals. I implore you to read both MOS:LEADCITE and WP:ROWN, and consider how your own opinions are commensurate with these policies. Conan, you've made repeated use of loaded and emotional language here, calling edits "odious" and "disgusting" and complaining about Wiki's left-wing bias. You also made crass, gendered attacks on me for questioning your block reversions on your talk page - you told me to "sack up for shut up"[7] which you deleted but did not strike through per my requests. If you cannot view this subject neutrally and objectively it may be best not to edit this page Noteduck (talk) 21:55, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

RfC claim of proximate to the far-right in article lead

Should the article lead contain the following characterization of Murray with the associated sources in the lead:

Murray's views and ideology have been described as being proximate to the far-right by a number of academic and journalistic sources and he has been accused of promoting far-right conspiracy theories and for being Islamophobic.

Quality of references as well as how this proposed content is integrated into the article should be considered. Springee (talk) 02:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Same sentence, but with references:

Murray's views and ideology have been described as being proximate to the far-right by a number of academic and journalistic sources and he has been accused of promoting far-right conspiracy theories and for being Islamophobic.

Quality of references as well as how this proposed content is integrated into the article should be considered. Springee (talk) 02:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

RfC References
References

Survey proximate to far-right

• No - The quotes in 1-5 do not directly verify whatever the hell proximate is supposed to mean or promotion of far-right. 6 directly verifies the Islamophobia part though. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:59, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• No: NO reference to far-right is needed in the lede; it is extremely difficult if not an anomaly to be a proponent of social cohesion and into the far-right at the same time. Paragraph 2 in the lede should be dropped. None of that scopes the fulness of this article as per the MOS given above for a lead. --Whiteguru (talk) 04:04, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Mmmmm ??? loosely Yes Accused of being Islamaphobic is fairly undeniable. I am not completely happy with 'proximate' nor 'promoting'. The first is an obscure term, which in itself means that it is not clear what we are saying. I'm not sure that the sources endorse him 'promoting' far-right theories, as opposed to 'echoing' similar ideas - though I am unsure of what the apt wording would be for this. Just to point out that neither 'centrist' nor a 'proponent of social cohesion' (terms which seem self-evident to some editors here) are actually terms used by even pro-Murray partisan sources to describe him. The elements of his beliefs which are most often referred to as echoing 'far-right' theories relate mainly to Islam, race and immigration. A connection to far-right ideas should be noted, but I am not entirely happy with present wording nor sure how to improve it. Pincrete (talk) 09:15, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Yes. Probably the wording could be further tightened ("close" would be better than "proximate", although still a little vague; "expressing" would be better than "promoting"; and "for being" should be "of being") but the substantive meaning is well justified by the sources, which appear to be reliable (we could discuss them one by one if necessary), and there are enough sources for it to be due. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:34, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Yes. These are very well sourced claims, I would second users who believe better wording is possible, but the substance of the claim should remain in the article. Boynamedsue (talk) 16:54, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
• Yes per BobFromBrockley - Idealigic (talk) 15:28, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
• No Poorly sourced from what appear to be activist or politically biased references at times ("academic"/"journalist" or no), and not obvious from some of them what is actually being said wrt Murray being "far right", other than he's mentioned vaguely in articles that mention the phrase somewhere. Presumably that's what the weaselly "proximate to" is referring to. Certainly not appropriate for a lead biographical section. A huge amount of time has been put into discussing this subject after this serious accusation has been made and published, with still no consensus. Conan The Librarian (talk) 20:14, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• No "proximate" is ambiguous, non-encyclopedic and a weasel word. It might be a good rhetorical trick in the arsenal of political activists, but otherwise is too vague for Wikipedia, especially in a BLP.Mcrt007 (talk) 06:33, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Discussion proximate to far-right

Comment I would encourage editors to review the section Douglas_Murray_(author)#Ideological_links_to_the_far_right in the article body. I think some of the issue with the sentence in the lead comes from this section which was added after the fact to support the claims in the lead. This addition is poorly crafted, contains unsupported claims such as "Murray is often perceived as..." (how do we define "often"). Additionally, many of the sources in this section are the same as used in the lead resulting in more than one reference to the same source. I think a discussion of the above content should include a discussion of this section of the body. I'm sure some of this content should stay but currently it puts undue weight on this part of the biography. Springee (talk) 02:54, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• I agree with Springee -- the sources for that sentence should be evaluated. Every one of them easily meets WP:RS; most are from peer-reviewed academic sources. These sources are not going anywhere; we can discuss the wording used to reflect what the sources say, but the sources will have to stay. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:39, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• This is disputed text and there is now a RfC to see if there is consensus to include. You should not have restored the text while the RfC is in progress. I believe a number of the sources we open access journals or otherwise low quality sources or Murray was mentioned in a way that makes DUE for the lead to be questionable. Either way, please self revert while the consensus finding process is running. Springee (talk) 12:26, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• See, this is the sort of comment that isn't going to get us anywhere. "Open access" does not mean low quality; it really depends on the specific journal. If you have any concerns about specific journals I'll be happy to help; I am familiar with journals in the social sciences and know how to judge which ones are suspect. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:56, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Open access is never a good sign. Here is the problem. We are making a vague yet negative claim about a BLP. Since we are trying to claim something negative we really need to make sure the sourcing is robust. That means we don't use passive mentions or mentions that don't explain why Murray is X. We also ask if this is a quality journal or a crap journal that publishes anything they can get. Some of the sources Noteduck added in the last month where in that category but I don't recall if these were in that low quality bucket. Regardless, please self revert until consensus is established for this disputed material. Springee (talk) 13:10, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, you really don't know what you're talking about. Is this a dodgy journal?? There's no need for uninformed generalizations. Again, I'll help. If you have concerns about a specific journal (i.e., a reason for concern), feel free to raise them. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:35, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I really do. Since I haven't claimed a particular journal is suspect a "gotcha" isn't going to work here. You are right, there is not need for uninformed generalizations but that isn't what we are talking about. That said, it would be helpful if the original edits weren't so poorly done. It really would be best to TNT the material from the lead and the body then start over with some talk page back and forth first. It's clear many editors are concerned with how this section is presented. Springee (talk) 13:50, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Hmm. Do you have any actual concerns about a specific journal that is currently being used on this article? A glance at the ones being used for the sentence at stake in this RfC doesn't suggest to me that any of them is an "open access journal", let alone a dodgy one. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:38, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Can I just remind people that NO ONE is or ever has suggested that these criticisms are put into WP:VOICE. Murray is a very controversial figure and the issue is how to phrase, attribute and properly WEIGH the criticisms which undoubedly exist (UK Guardian described the "Death of Europe" as "gentrified xenophobia", even the UK Conservative party distanced itself from him because of his refusal to moderate/clarify some of his wilder pronouncements). Obviously proper phrasing and weight is called for, but it is hardly a BLP issue. These criticisms have been made by mainstream figures. Pincrete (talk) 16:58, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure if Springee is confusing "open access" for "not peer-reviewed". All that "open access" means is that the publishers of a journal has decided to make the contents of a journal freely accessible. Although Springee has been on Wikipedia for a very long time and is very capable of weaponizing Wiki policies where it suits them, they frequently misunderstand Wiki policy. Furthermore Springee, as can be seen in your talk page history (since you tend to delete unflattering material from your talk page) you have a history of NPOV and partisanship problems, and it's hard to see this desire to remove the material on Murray's extremely well-documented ideological links to the far-right as anything other than partisan whitewashing. The subsection "ideological links to the far right" is based on a wealth of academic and journalistic sources and gives a whole paragraph to Murray's views. I don't see why any of it should be removed Noteduck (talk) 21:37, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

No, I simply haven't gone through the whole list of sources you dumped in the lead. At least one of your additions to an article recently included many poor quality sources (perhaps I'm thinking of your PragerU additions). Springee (talk) 21:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Springee, the only consistent factor in sources you call into question or rate as poor is that they could be perceived as unflattering to conservative subjects. Please keep NPOV in mind and work with other editors to improve this encyclopedia Noteduck (talk) 00:25, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

• I have offered a number of times to help evaluate specific sources. I did this because Springee, the OP for this RfC, raised concerns about the "quality of sources", about use of "open access journals or otherwise low quality sources", about "crap journal that publishes anything they can get. Some of the sources Noteduck added in the last month where in that category", and about "additions to an article recently [that] included many poor quality sources". The failure to identify concerns about specific sources, giving reasons, tells us what is really going on here, I think: at least in regard to "quality of sources", it's only handwaving, a thin pretext for the notion that "BLP concerns about low-quality sourcing" compel us to delete the passages. In other words, textbook WP:CRYBLP. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:17, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Yep, that's why I struggle to see these block reversions as sincere attempts to improve this page. There have been plenty of opportunities to name specific problems with the material or sources, but nobody has done so, instead just raising impossibly vague complaints attached to block reversions:"note BLP", "biased", "journals might be crappy" etc. There are definite ways this page could be improved - for example, Murray's ideological self-definition would very much be good to have in the header, especially given the wide variety of labels that have been attached to him - but instead the only consistent factor in these repeated reversions is the purging of any material that could be perceived as unflattering to Murray Noteduck (talk) 10:13, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

• A lead usually is fairly reference-light as it should summarise the body, where everything should be referenced. It would ordinarily be fine, therefore, to include this sentence without refs as a decent summary of the referenced "Ideological links to the far right" section. (WP:LEAD: "Reliably sourced material about encyclopedically relevant controversies is neither suppressed in the lead nor allowed to overwhelm; the lead must correctly summarize the article as a whole.") However, sometimes when this sort of material is contested, the lead will also include references: "The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and direct quotations, should be supported by an inline citation. Any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead." As for open access journals, it is very ill-informed to say that open access is automatically low quality; many of the most important scientific research funders now require their funded research to be published open access (including UK social science research councils). If there is a problem with specific sources, we can evaluate one by one, and if necessary seek advice from the RSN. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:44, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

How about "Murray's views and ideology have been linked to the far right" rather than "proximate to the far right"? Means just about the same thing really, but sounds a little less verbose. Thoughts/comments? Noteduck (talk) 00:41, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

In what way is Murray "linked to" the far-right? Is he linked in that he is inspired by or accepts support from the far right or is he linked in that his ideas are embraced by the far right because they happen to align with views the far right likes? As a hypothetical analogy, let's assume a government is spending a lot on education programs for minorities in their cities and let's assume the results of these programs have produced no measurable positive results. So public figure Mr X says these programs are a waste of money and need to be cut. A group of racist embrace and repeat this message because they don't want money going to the minority group. Is Mr X linked to the racists? Certainly they are aligned on this objective but that doesn't mean there is any communication or that Mr X is even happy about the association. Proximate is a poor term but "linked to" suggests a connection that doesn't appear to be supported by the sources. Do note that this article still needs some serious cleanup but I've been delaying making changes so long as the AE dispute is open. Springee (talk) 20:53, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

What kind of "cleanup" did you have in mind? Every academic source that I've seen that discusses Murray (and I've seen around a dozen) sees his ideological positions as being similar to those of the far right. Do you have any any academic sources that disagree with this viewpoint? The general thrust of the arguments I've seen is that Murray puts a socially acceptable face on fringe far-right ideologies, dressing them up in politically acceptable language while still repeating their main talking points Noteduck (talk) 21:18, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I think your edit summary might provide a good option. You used the phrase "ideologically proximate". That's better as it helps clarify what is proximate. It might be better to further refine and say on which topics (immigration/Islam/other). I don't think the far-right is likely to share Murray's views on same sex marriage or gay rights. I don't think anyone is suggesting Murray is in favor of authoritarianism or over throwing current governments. Both of these are things I've seen associated with the far right. Narrowing the claim makes it easier to support. Also with the narrowed claim we don't need a long list of citations in the lead since the supporting material will be in the body (you can always use a <! tag > to put a hidden comment in the text so editors will see where the support comes from in the main document. Taking this a bit further, we have a sentence that says "Murray has been described..." but I think most of those things relate to his views on immigration and Islam. What about saying, "His views on immigration and Islamic immigration into Europe have been controversial and described as X,Y, Z" It provides the same keywords yet gives them context. [note- I'm assuming that would be a valid sentence] Since there are a number of sources that praise Murray the lead should cover those as well. If we just cover the negative then it becomes an NPOV issue. Springee (talk) 21:34, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

For those who seem baffled by the contention Murray is linked to the far right, have you ever had a flick through his books? In The Strange Death of Europe there is literally a heading titled The Great Replacement (yes, the same as the title of the Christchurch mosque shooter's manifesto). It uncritically and approvingly repeats the key elements of the far-right Great Replacement conspiracy theory and simply refers to anti-Muslim conspiracy theorist Renaud Camus as a "French intellectual". Murray is controversial for a reason Noteduck (talk) 11:28, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Views section

Pretty hard to digest all of the above, but having edited Murray's article merely to improve the grammar and formatting aspects, I was thanked by Noteduck, and ended up seeing this Talk page. I like Murray, but there's no denying he is controversial (for some). On balance, I felt that "Ideological links to the far-right" as a sub-heading below "Views" gives undue weight to this label for Murray. I don't think there's much harm in having genuine criticisms of him included in the article, but I've changed that sub-heading to "Criticism", as I feel it's more appropriate when seen in the context of the article overview not to give undue prominence to those voices who have labelled him "far right". I don't mind such criticisms staying in the article (for those who appreciate Murray, it might even be helpful to be aware of these), but I think using it as a section heading may be showing bias. --TrottieTrue (talk) 04:16, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

There is almost NO criticism that I am aware of that doesn't relate to his anti-immigration, anti-Muslim or similar views, so changing the heading seems weasel-ly and euphemistic to me. Pincrete (talk) 07:51, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm with Pincrete here. Since all of this section (and really all criticism I've seen on Murray) focuses on purported ideological ties to the far right, I think the prior subheading was more appropriate Noteduck (talk) 11:18, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Antipathy to immigrants and Muslims is not wholly synonymous with being far-right of course. Pincrete (talk) 11:53, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Reminder the far right stuff needs removing, see previous discussions ad nauseum. Clarification inserted on the motivation in the meantime. Conan The Librarian (talk) 09:17, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Conan, your restoration of the WP:NPOVD template seems to be based on personal opinion rather than policy and should be reverted, but seems to be in good faith. Your next two edits look tendentious and a breach of WP:NPOV policy. You obviously have a strong personal disagreement with the sources and that's fine, but please don't put accusations of source bias or lack of NPOV without basis. There are around a dozen academic sources that have been used in this heading backed with direct quotes, and you haven't referred to specific evidentiary issues with any of them. I researched and added many of the sources, and you're welcome to start a discussion about them on my talk page if you wish. Noteduck (talk) 09:29, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Middle East Eye, OpEd claims

Noteduck, why are you using an OpEd article to make a contentious claim about a BLP subject? The Middle East Eye article was discussed at RSN here [[8]]. I don't see any consensus for accepting that this source is acceptable for contentious claims about a BLP subject. Why are you restoring it without going to the talk page or getting consensus first? [[9]] Please remember that the burden is on the person trying to add the content to get consensus first. If you are concerned that we are at an impasse I would be happy to start a RfC. Springee (talk) 17:58, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

your only basis for excluding it seems that be that it's an op-ed - I see you have removed several sources from the Tucker Carlson page, seemingly on the same basis that you feel there is a universal proscription on op-ed articles being used on BLP pages. Can you please provide a reference to the policy that confirms this? As discussed in the RS Noticeboard, one of several sources on this page that you took there, MEE is a Qatari-government funded outlet just like RS Al Jazeera, while Nafeez Ahmed is a renowned subject-matter expert Noteduck (talk) 18:15, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

This is not the Tucker Carlson page. The Middle East Eye article is an OpEd. Using an opinion article to make a contentious claim about a BLP subject is an issue. Additionally, this material has already been discussed and didn't get consensus as reliable for the claim you wish to make with it. Since this is a BLP you need to apply the BLP part of NOCON which says if there isn't consensus for inclusion of contentious material about a BLP subject it needs to go. Springee (talk) 18:26, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I personally found the removal bizarre, and the edit reason more so. The op-ed is not being used to support a statement of fact about Murray, which obviously would make BLP relevant. The op-ed is being used to support the claim that "His views and ideology have been linked to far-right political ideologies by a number of academic and journalistic[11] sources. He has also been accused of promoting far-right conspiracy theories".

So here we have an English academic and journalist, prominent in the topic area outling fairly extensively Murray's involvement with far-right conspiracists (I've never been wholly happy with 'promoting'). How can that be a BLP matter? The 'fact' is that Murray has been extensively accused of extreme antipathy to 'immigrants', the descendants of immigrants, and Muslims. Recording that accusation neutrally and in a balanced fashion is an issue - that he has been so accused is not IMO. Murray's reputation (good or bad) largely depends on his having been so accused. What on earth is contentious or even disputable about him having been accused of Islamophobia etc.- which I believe he is on record as saying simply doesn't exist (or is a nonsense word, or somesuch). Pincrete (talk) 12:40, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

If that is the claim then we should have a source that says that. This article went from what some felt was too soft on Murray to something that now reads like a laundry list of every negative thing that could possibly be said about Murry. Regardless, we shouldn't be using OpEd articles to support negative claims about BLP subjects. The use of this specific article was discussed and we had no consensus to accept it. Noteduck needs to respect the process even if they don't agree with the results. Springee (talk) 13:08, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

"Progressive Politics in a Changing World: Challenging the Fallacies of Blue Labour"

One of the sources for noting connections between Murray and the far right is "Progressive Politics in a Changing World: Challenging the Fallacies of Blue Labour" the quote used in the source describe Murray and Roger Scruton as being part of the "white nationalist" right. This label especially for Scruton is an obvious example of Fringe view and so I removed it. Some have disagreed so in order to prevent edit-warring I decided to make a talk page to discuss. Since there are four prior sources I felt that it was better to remove this rather poor one. Thoughts? 3Kingdoms (talk) 16:46, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't see why it's "obvious" that the source falls under "fringe". The source is published in a highly respected academic political science journal. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:17, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Scruton was not a white nationalist. That is a fringe view. 3Kingdoms (talk) 19:15, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

According to you? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:19, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Neither Wiki, nor reliable sources call him a white nationalist. 3Kingdoms (talk) 19:25, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Here's one: "Progressive Politics in a Changing World: Challenging the Fallacies of Blue Labour", published in The Political Quarterly. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:32, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Very clever... Still fringe. 3Kingdoms (talk) 20:08, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

This reliable source calls Obama a socialist, would you support adding that to his page? [10] 3Kingdoms (talk) 20:12, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

This page is for discussion of Douglas Murray -- perhaps pose your question at Talk:Barack Obama? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:21, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

It is absolutely within the spectrum of mainstream academic opinion on Murray to refer to him as a "white nationalist". I recommend reading the whole article, which also refers to Murray as an "anti-Muslim polemicist". Again, all in line with what multiple academic and journalistic sources have said Noteduck (talk) 06:26, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I was providing a rhetorical question to show the problem with using one reliable source, since they can be wrong. The other four do not call Murray or Scurton white nationalist so this is an outliner. Second Murray's criticism of Islam or anti-Islam views as some call it are supported and mentioned in the article. White nationalism is not. Finally the article is hardly even about Murray, but instead a criticism of Blue Labour. So why include it? 3Kingdoms (talk) 15:13, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

The Forbes source does not call Obama a socialist, it is an opinion piece that rhetorically asks to what extent Obama is one. It then specifically defines socialist in the European usage (ie left-of-centre Social Democratic, partially regulated mixed economy, internationally cooperative, liberal). It concludes "He is clearly a socialist in the European sense of the term" - but Europeans don't have a problem with either mildly-left-of-centre policies, nor with the word itself, but most commentators wouldn't call Obama a 'socialist', so neither do we, but we would not prohibit his critics from using the word. Comparably, Murray is not being described in WP:VOICE as a "nationalist" - he is being characterised adjectivally by one of his critics thus. But the critic's substantive point is that Murray includes an ethno/religious precondition to identity and citizenship - is the fact that he believes that controversial? Ironically Murray is an atheist of course, but that's another matter. Pincrete (talk) 07:41, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

"He is clearly a socialist in the European sense of the term" So it does call him one. Of course he is not, but the point was that a "reliable source" can get points wrong. Next there is a difference between calling someone a nationalist vs white nationalist. If the article called Murray and Scurton as being part of the nationalist right, sure that's fine, but White nationalist right it is a simply fringe view. At that point are we going to cite Glenn Beck for an example of Obama being part of the "black nationalist left"? Lines should be drawn and this article which is hardly even about the two is unneeded, the focus is Blue Labour. 3Kingdoms (talk) 15:13, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Let's revisit (on Talk:Barack Obama) when Glenn Beck gets published in a peer-reviewed academic journal. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:23, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Missing the point. 3Kingdoms (talk) 15:29, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Ignoring the totally irrelevant Obama discussion, just wanted to add my voice to the clear consensus here: I don't think any UK political scientist would agree that Political Quarterly is a fringe source; it is about as mainstream a political studies journal there is in Britain. But if you want to dispute that, 3Kingdoms, I think you'd need to go to the RSN. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:44, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Motte-and-bailey fallacy. I never disputed Political Quarterly as a source, but the use of a source publishing a Fringe view "Scruton is a 'white Nationalist'" And that the article was not even about Murray, but instead a critical view of Blue Labour. I really don't see how you could not tell that was what I was saying. 3Kingdoms (talk) 21:45, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

But WP doesn't say either Scruton or Murray ARE white nationalists. There's a difference between an adjective and a noun and a difference between "some critic say … " and WP:VOICE. Pincrete (talk) 07:15, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

"The white nationalist right like Roger Scruton and Douglas Murray reject that." In cases like this it is pretty clear the author is treating the noun and adjective the same. As well the wording is for "far-right" not white national, although to be fair there is overlap in the groups. However as I said before the article mentions them in passing and is instead about Blue Labour. To my mind the other articles are more than enough and this one should be removed. 3Kingdoms (talk) 19:48, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately, although the hate-tagging of people like Murray and Scruton from the radical left is appalling, the bias clear to any moderate person familiar with British political comment is present in the references used - which apparently are granted a pass being "academic" and "journalistic". It's easy to find sources in a left-dominated field like social studies that attack centrist and conservative writers and rather less so to find ones that defend them from charges that should never have been made in the first place. Conan The Librarian (talk) 17:24, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Even Murray himself has never referred to himself as a 'centrist'. He initially called himself a neo-con, then later as a conservative, though his views on race, how to treat UK ethnic minorities and on Islam were disowned by the UK Conservative party, who reluctantly severed all connections with him when he refused to disown proposals he had made which were patently discriminatory, illegal and unworkable (apart from being incendiary). Regardless of whether his accuser's are being wholly 'fair', the notion that this old-Etonian editor of a notable UK periodical, who became editor at a very young age(despite almost no experience in journalism) - is an oppressed 'centrist' being unfairly silenced or oppressed by hordes of 'lefty' journos and academics is - frankly - for the birds. He is controversial and, since he is an adult, presumably is intentionally so. Pincrete (talk) 08:48, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Conan never called him a "centrist" he wrote "It's easy to find sources in a left-dominated field like social studies that attack centrist and conservative writers.." Could you cite the break between the UK Conservative party and Murray. I do not see it on this page or looking up. I do know Michael Gove gave the Strange death of Europe a positive review. 3Kingdoms (talk) 15:12, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Most of the relevant text about the split with the conservative party is in the article starting "In February 2006, speaking at the "Pim Fortuyn Memorial Conference on Europe and Islam", Murray said:". I don't know whether our links still work, since some of the relevant originals have been deleted by various parties (inc. Murray). Pincrete (talk) 16:06, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Ok I see it now. However this was in 2006 and since then as noted before both Boris Johnson and Gove have interacted with him or praised his works. Thus it would not seem that he is currently out of favor with the party. 3Kingdoms (talk) 16:37, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Both Johnson and Murray have been employed by The Spectator around the same time - Johnson as editor, Murray as associate editor. I don't think there is either friendship or antipathy between Murray and the present Tory party, but he is probably still too much of a 'loose cannon' for them - defending EDL etc.

Murray certainly lost all credibility as a policy advocate/expert regarding Islam and minorities and terrorism, which was the ostensible purpose of his Centre for Social Cohesion. I don't understand the relevance of the split having been in the past - it was around the time he formed CfSC. It's a bit difficult to be taken seriously as a promoter of social cohesion or a defender of European liberal values when you are advocating that an entire section of society should be robbed of their rights as citizens and demonised solely on the basis of their religion. The measures he was advocating would almost certainly have contravened international law apart from any other consideration. Pincrete (talk) 18:00, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

That is POV. Given the success and Praise that the Strange Death of Europe received from mainstream sources (along with criticism) Murray is considered a source on this matter for people of the Centre-right. This of course has nothing to do with the issue, which is a source calling him and Scurton "white nationalists" in passing for a paper not even on them but Blue Labour. It should be removed the others are more than enough, no need to waste with a bad source.3Kingdoms (talk) 19:26, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

You asked about the circumstances of Murray's ostracisation from the Tory party - I replied. I don't agree that anything here invalidates the fact that some critics associate Murray - at least opportunistically or as a 'fellow traveller' - with white nationalism. Pincrete (talk) 15:03, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

"Murray certainly lost all credibility as a policy advocate/expert regarding Islam and minorities and terrorism, which was the ostensible purpose of his Centre for Social Cohesion." That is a POV statement, if you are confused by what I meant above. It might be true it might not, but it needs facts to back up, and evidence suggest that Murray is welcomed by a large faction of the Conservative party. Second the line used is "far-right" not white nationalist on his article. That along with also calling Scruton a white nationalist and not even being about them is pretty clearly both Fringe and not needed as a source. 3Kingdoms (talk) 15:22, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Your claiming that Murray is now "welcomed by a large faction of the Conservative party" is less reported than my detailing him having been ostracised by it. Some (one?) senior Tories writing ++ reviews of a Murray book means little … … btw, the other guy's name is Scruton! The first time I assumed it was a typo. We aren't going to agree about the source regarding Murray, the source is good and the criticism of Murray well within the normal range for people who have expressed the opinions he has. He remains a very polarising figure in the UK, which was the only reason for me ever raising the issue of his relationship with mainstream UK conservatism. Pincrete (talk) 16:21, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

One of the leaders of the Tories, Gove, having a positive review of his work along with working alongside Johnson while at the Specator are stronger evidence of him not being orsctascised anymore than an event from 2006. You have not addressed the major point that calling Scruton a white nationalist is clearly fringe and that Murray's page does not call him such. As a BLP and the article in question not even being about him, which no has addressed yet, there is really no reason to keep this source up. 3Kingdoms (talk) 18:40, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

The source is certainly not "good"; in pretty much every case they are from leftist campaigners using "journalism" or "academia" to promote their views in welcoming publications dominated by fellow travellers and presented here as some sort of central view by virtue of them being "reputable" sources. It's absurd that an obscure left wing writer gets their emotional pigeon-holing of a very successful mainstream writer they have visceral distaste for labelled as "far" anything because the distance between them (which I agree is "far") is almost entirely on the left of the centre line, but being presented as though it is on the political side represented by figures like Scruton and Murray.Conan The Librarian (talk) 18:45, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Hmm -- you put "academia" in quotation marks -- as if to suggest that the source is not actually an academic one? That can't be it -- once again it is an article in an entirely conventional academic journal.

I really don't think there's any future in the idea that this source is somehow defective in the terms of WP:RS. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 04:55, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

The source is defective in terms of weight and inappropriately flying the "academic" flag. The article implies these absurd "far right" and "white nationalist" categorisations are somehow the settled view of academia when in fact they are the opinions of a tiny minority of seemingly ideologically-driven obscure writers publishing articles which appear to be barely-cited and quickly forgotten - except apparently by the editors ever-vigilant here against the ingress of woke-sceptic writers and their ideas to mainstream public discourse without suitable content warnings. Conan The Librarian (talk) 20:02, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I have looked at the cite to "Progressive Politics" etc. and believe it's a poor source. If I understand correctly, it was added by Noteduck on 2 January 2021, is supported in this thread by Pincrete and Nomoskedasticity and Noteduck and BobFromBrockley, is opposed in this thread by 3Kingdoms and Conan the Librarian and (now) me. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:09, 20 July 2021 (UTC) Update: and now opposed in this thread by Springee too. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 01:56, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

WP:RSN, perhaps? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:02, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

The only argument I see so far for excluding the source is (crudely) Murray isn't a white nationalist, therefore the source must be fringe and the analysis it makes must be simply wrong, invalid, unworthy of consideration and must have zero WEIGHT. No one has even attempted to argue that the source in which it appears is not WP:RS or that the academic reporting his analysis isn't competent (I exclude Conan's anti-woke grapeshot above). In other words the objectors work backwards from a conclusion they don't like, to invalidate the source.

As it happens, I agree with those that say that most RS wouldn't describe Murray as a "white nationalist", but neither does WP nor Bloomfield - the academic in question. The text quoted in the cite is :"In the post‐Enoch Powell era, the UK has evolved a broad, cross‐party consensus that maintains that British citizenship and identity is not defined ethnically. The white nationalist right like Roger Scruton and Douglas Murray reject that." So, first of all, adjectives are not nouns, being at the socially liberal end of the US Christian Right is not the same as being a social liberal. Besides which, the most interesting observation to me at least in that quote is the observation that Scruton and Murray link ethnicity and citizenship in a way which isn't part of any "cross‐party consensus" - this appears to me to be indisputable, I thought both were proud of disavowing any "cross‐party consensus" on this or many other matters. But whether you characterise such linking of ethnicity and citizenship as inherently "ethnically nationalist" is a judgement call, not a factual matter.

The accusation that Murray has a negative attitude to non-European immigrants and the descendants of such immigrants, especially those from Islamic countries is barely disputable, ditto the culture Murray thinks such immigrants and their descendants are wedded to. Supporters of Murray think his negative attitude is justified and courageous, critics tend to characterise it as being "racist", "Islamaphobic", or - in this instance - "white nationalist". Why is "racist" as a descriptor OK, but "white nationalist" beyond the pale, the latter is simply a form of the former? I'm trying to avoid WP:OR, but how editors can argue that proposing targetted extra-judicial measures for punishing the descendants of non-European migrants - (including deportation to the country their ancestor came from) if they happen to disagree (peacefully) with policies of the UK govt or its allies, cannot legitimately be described as in the "white nationalist" camp, is a mystery to me. This Murray did in a 2005 speech, which he has never disowned or apologised for, (described here).

So, the publication the quote came from is sound, AFAIK the academic is sound, even a very harsh reading of what he says is well within the gamut of criticism of Murray, the volume of text is modest, (a quote in a cite). I cannot see ANY objection apart from not liking that someone has said this about Murray. Pincrete (talk) 08:45, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

As per Nomoskedasticity, I would recommend that anyone disputing this source take it to WP:RSN but it is unlikely that "academia is left-wing so we shouldn't use scholarly sources for right-wing thinkers" would get much support there, which seems to be the extent of the criticism. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:52, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't see this so much as RSN so much as DUE. This isn't an argument for or against RS but even if we assume this passes RS, the question is if the way it is being used is DUE. My feeling is no. I don't have access to the full source but I would ask is Murray actually discussed in detail in the article? Does the article make the case that Murray is or does it just name drop? The article is ~10 pages, is this the only time Murray's name is mentioned? If yes then I think the name drop is too incidental given the association the Wiki article is trying to draw is vague while the group/category "white nationalist" is also both nebulous and reviled. Since this content was originally added this nebulous association thing has been a problem. "Associated with" and similar terms are very wheezily for a BLP article. Specific sources that say "this idea/argument of Murray is the same as this argument made by [white nationalist org]" is something concrete. What we are getting instead is sort of a guilt by mention or association thing. That's not how we should be writing a BLP article and this is why several of us were critical of the changes made to this article earlier this year. Note that there was never a true consensus for those changes, just editors getting tired of the edit warring. Springee (talk) 11:16, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

My understanding of WP:DUE, is that applies to article text - mainly WP:VOICE and how views are expressed within the article body. I find it a bit novel to assert that it applies equally to views expressed by third party sources within cites. Our text is this "His (Murray's) views and ideology have been linked to far-right political ideologies by a number of academic[10] … sources". No one I think claims that this text is overstated or given excessive space or credence. It could be argued of course that there are too many cites or that some quotes within the cites are excessively long, but that is a different matter. I would assert that the linking of citizenship to European identity (which Murray almost undeniably does) is VERY concrete and not in the slightest "guilt by association". Pincrete (talk) 07:41, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. I really don't understand the drive to exclude this source entirely. I'm glad to see some awareness from those who dislike it that it is indeed suitable per WP:RS. With four words in our text drawing on it, I can't see the problem w/rt WP:DUE. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:23, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Nomoskedasticity, with the number of editors opposing this text it would be best to not restore it until we have some consensus as to what to do with it. Springee (talk) 13:20, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

DUE applies to if something is included or not as well as how much emphasis is included. In other words, the relative emphasis can include 0. The problem I think all the editors in opposition are really grappling with is how this material is being incorporated. Normally this sort of single mention in a 10 page article would be considered UNDUE as it lacks any sort of explanation by the source. But if an editor is determined to get these (negative) associations into the article then we have to resort to words like "proximate", "associated" or "linked". However, that is also why this is OR. We don't have RSs saying something like, "Scholars link Murray to [disreputable group]". That is instead something that was invented in order to include otherwise insignificant mentions of Murray into this article. In effect these sources don't stand on their own so we bundle them (OR) to make a generalized claim. The problem is this is a BLP and we should err on the side of not doing harm, not making contentious claims/associations unless RSs (which have WEIGHT) clearly make the claims. If these sources don't say enough about Murray to explain why they associate him with what ever disreputable group then we shouldn't include the comment. If a source says "Murray's comments on X parallel that of [nationalist group] because of X, Y and Z" then we have something to work on. At least this disputed text, perhaps many of the others as well, don't appear to have any of that.

Casual academic mention can be a problem. Consider any academic text that mentions the Ford Pinto as a case of a company knowingly trading tort costs for re-engineering costs. More than a few academic sources state that as fact but later, detailed studies found such associations were wrong. However, if we just went by off hand mentions in otherwise good scholarship we would reach the wrong conclusion.

I think some editors might take exception to my OR claim. I would point them to an ORN discussion I had with regards to Tucker Carlson [[11]]. TLDR, Carlson frequently says something that is correct in detail but the casual reader might take to mean something different. Invented example: "Senator X said no election fraud, senator X is wrong." - in reality the level of fraud was to low to matter as basically all experts agree that no national election is 100.0000% fraud free. Thus the claim is "true" but misleading. Many examples but as individual examples they aren't due for inclusion. Thus the question, is indicating this is a pattern OR? Answer, yes. We can only do this if RSs say this is a pattern. That is what we have here. We the wiki editors are saying academics have linked him but not saying how or to what extent. We don't have RSs saying this. The better solution to all this is to strip away the sources that are mere mentions and work with the ones that have substance in their criticism. The scarlet letter dropping that was added to this article over the winter went way to far and the article now fails IMPARTIAL. What we are grappling with here is how do we take a poorly written article and fix some of the issues which is probably best done through structural changes rather than inclusions/exclusion of individual sources. Springee (talk) 13:20, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I wonder whether the phrase "white nationalist right" in the Political Quarterly article would be better punctuated "white, nationalist right"? Do Murray and Scruton's politics really fit into the category white nationalism as defined on Wikipedia here? I sympathise with the DUE argument. Extraordinary claims require extra-ordinary sourcing. It would be better if additional sources which validate what is stated could be found.     ←   ZScarpia   14:26, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Like ZScarpia, I have some sympathy with the DUE argument. "White nationalist right" is a stronger claim than simply "far right", and the source, though thoroughly reliable, only mentions Murray in passing, so would be better with additional sources. So, I'd leave it bundled in to the "academic" footnote (currently note 10) but not use the words "white nationalist" in our article for now. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:34, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

A couple of thoughts. I don't find the claim of adjective vs Noun here to be convincing. If someone says that a person if on the communist-left or the Nazi-right I really don't see how one could argue that is functionally any different than calling someone a communist or Nazis. Second the bringing up of a speech by Murray in 2006 I don't see the point, not only is it not part of the issue here, but it reads as origin work I don't think any here dispute that Murray is controversial, but that is again not the issue here. Third as has been said before this article is not even about Murray or Scruton, but Blue Labour as others have said including this article just feels like someone throwing the whole kitchen sink of negative comments about Murray to be put in even when it is unneeded. While I believe the article is also Fringe for calling either, but especially Scruton a white nationalist it is also undue given it is not even about the two and the numerous other articles above. 3Kingdoms (talk) 15:43, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Edit war over this

This was the Bold edit, deleting the source. It was reverted, and then the discussion above started. See WP:BRD.

Ignoring that fact and ignoring the rules, several people have edit-warred the source out. Stop it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:13, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

NPOV Template Message

I don't see the justification for this, at least in the article as it now stands. Should it be removed?Tillander 05:30, 24 July 2021 (UTC)