Talk:Douglas Murray (author)

Lede
Whats happening with the lede? I left a tag so folk could take notice. Is there somekind of faceoff that led to about a dozen refs in one spot. Its excessive.  scope_creep Talk  22:13, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm actually trying to figure out how to merge those right now, found the link in the template you posted, but I haven't attempted this before. Fred Zepelin (talk) 22:15, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The lead was recently changed in a way that has BLP concerns regarding putting a contentious LABEL in the opening sentence. Absent a clear consensus to make the recent changes it should be rolled back to the last stable version of the lead.  Springee (talk) 22:28, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * scope_creep: Read the previous thread = let's be more careful. This appears to be just a continuation of the same topic, if you agree then please change your heading to show that this is a sub-topic. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:32, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I finished consolidating 9 of those refs, so I think we're all set on this topic. Fred Zepelin (talk) 23:41, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Citation bundling: IMO the bundling of citations, as currently presented in the article, is sub-optimal. It leads to a bloat of the "References" section with large swaths of bibliographic material and quotations duplicated because they are also used elsewhere. I suggest to either return to the unbundled state and accept a list of citations in the article, or, more complicated, use the harvnb/sfn mechanism and bundle those. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:56, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * You preferred the bloat of numbers 2 thru 12 in the lead itself? The text of the article being bloated, in my opinion, is far worse than the References section being bloated. Fred Zepelin (talk) 13:06, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * On balance, I prefer each citation marked as such on its own. The previous bundled state produced many duplicated references, which is confusing and not conforming with normal citing practice on Wikipedia. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:53, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I bundled using harvnb. I'm hoping this satisfies everyone. Planning to do the same in the body if there's no objection. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:56, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Now done. Someone may want to look into merging the two bundles together. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:16, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Request for Comment
What should the opening sentence of this bio read? A: "Douglas Murray (born 16 July 1979) is a British far-right author and political commentator." B: "Douglas Murray (born 16 July 1979) is a British author and conservative political commentator" with links to far-right located later in the article lead.

Fred Zepelin (talk) 13:51, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Responses

 * A - There are dozens of reliable secondary sources, already in the article, that either (a) describe Murray outright as a far-right figure, (b) describe Murray's endorsements/promotion of far-right conspiracy theories such as Eurabia, Great Replacement, and Cultural Marxism (all described by Wikipedia as far-right in those articles), and/or (c) describe Murray's positions that align with far-right ideologies. A handful of additional sources were removed in the last reversion. The only documented opposition to this descriptor comes from Murray himself, and of course, that does not count on Wikipedia, as he is a primary source. Fred Zepelin (talk) 14:00, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * B – Readers can make up their minds about Murray's leanings themselves; the lead alone will allow that. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:03, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * B - The stable version of the lead already notes link to far-right ideas. Per previous discussions it's not clear that Murray is widely described as primarily "far-right" thus putting this in the opening sentence puts undue weight on that contentious LABEL.  That also raises a BLP concern again given the nature of "far-right" and things like it's Neo-nazi associations (per the lead of Far-right).  As Michael notes above, it is better to allow the reader to decide rather than beat them over the head with it. Springee (talk) 14:27, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * B -- I said in the previous "let's be more careful" thread that cites that Fred Zepelin had added "do not sufficiently support far right", and I explained why in some detail. Subsequently I've noticed that someone wrote on substack about use of poor sourcing for an earlier version of this article: Re Wikipedia: The defenestration of Douglas Murray Or how Wikipedia can be gamed. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:31, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * While I always see substacks as something to be viewed with caution, the claims regarding various sources that have been used here are rather damning. Springee (talk) 15:02, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * "Damning"? Seriously? It's sloppy pseudoscholarship that misrepresents almost every source it cites. Be less credulous if you're going to start endorsing a source on a talk page, please. Grayfell (talk) 19:05, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Can you back up those claims? Note that I said the claims are damning.  I haven't done the research to show that the claims are true but if they are, yeah, they are damning of the sources that were discussed.  Can you show otherwise? Springee (talk) 19:23, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * As a couple of examples, it's ironic that the blog post spends a "gotcha" paragraph to imply that Ed Pertwee is under-qualified and to tie him the political left, only to then imply in the next paragraph that Wikipedia's use of that source is guilt by association. This article isn't about Pertwee, nor do his political views make his published work inherently less reliable. The only reason to mention Pertwee's social media comments is because the author's presumed audience is already primed to dismiss "leftist" sources. This is both disingenuous and sloppy.
 * Per the blog about that same source: The article itself mentions Murray only once and doesn’t accuse him of promoting conspiracies. "Accuse" is loaded language in this context, but the source specifically describes it as "a conspiratorial narrative" in the same paragraph which mentions Murray. Therefor this is factually incorrect.
 * Elsewhere, the blog attempts to explain Murray's comments about the EDF as being out-of-context. This would only make sense if Murray was somehow completely ignorant of how the EDF originated. It started from the far-right hooligan scene and was always mired in neo-Nazi crap from its very first protest. Murray's support of the EDF is support of the far-right even in context.
 * It goes on like this. It's a lazy and inconsistent blog post which proves nothing. Grayfell (talk) 20:07, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Why did you pick an example in the middle of the article? Do you feel it was the weakest example provided?  Yeah, the evidence that Pertwee is biased is not rock solid in that example but the blog author suggests that the Wiki editors were misusing a Pertwee article to support a claim:
 * Thus, by my read, the blogger isn't impressed with Pertwee but, as we might claim here, says the Wiki fact supported by the Pertwee source failed wp:V. I'm not sure your follow up comment is a valid argument either.  You are basically suggesting something like a dog whistle context.  Perhaps that a group can't be parsed or dissected for finer understanding.  You aren't so much showing that the blogger is wrong vs saying "the blogger said context was left out but really even more context was left out".  When we have to start making such claims and justifications to prove a contentious label, well perhaps we should back away from the label. The primary concern of the blogger, that the article at the time appeared to be more a hit piece vs an impartial summary looks fair. Springee (talk) 20:26, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thus, by my read, the blogger isn't impressed with Pertwee but, as we might claim here, says the Wiki fact supported by the Pertwee source failed wp:V. I'm not sure your follow up comment is a valid argument either.  You are basically suggesting something like a dog whistle context.  Perhaps that a group can't be parsed or dissected for finer understanding.  You aren't so much showing that the blogger is wrong vs saying "the blogger said context was left out but really even more context was left out".  When we have to start making such claims and justifications to prove a contentious label, well perhaps we should back away from the label. The primary concern of the blogger, that the article at the time appeared to be more a hit piece vs an impartial summary looks fair. Springee (talk) 20:26, 8 March 2024 (UTC)


 * B, keep it neutral.--Ortizesp (talk) 15:00, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * B (summoned by bot). Of the numerous citations in this version, I could only see two that directly call him far-right, both from The National: and, and both of these use the term in quote marks so it doesn't seem they are using this label in their own voice. The other sources use phrasing such as Murray’s book remodels a much older theory of so-called ‘cultural Marxism’, which has long history in far-right thought, which is a step removed from actually labelling him as far-right. Per WP:LABEL, I do not see sufficient source evidence to demonstrate that the label of far-right is widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 16:08, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * A -- the sources on this issue are quite obvious, and it's really incredible to see the types of arguments being used to deflect from that core idea. Just follow the sources -- a key pillar. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:25, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * A -- Sources "link" him to the far-right for a very obvious reason, and being evasive and coy about this isn't more neutral, it's less neutral. We shouldn't be using weasel words. Grayfell (talk) 19:00, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * We link him to the far-right too, in the lead. But there’s a difference between linking and labelling. Sources link him, but they don’t label him. So following the sources means doing the same. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 20:17, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * B -- the sources are perfectly adequate for the current links at the end of the lead, but not to WP:LABEL him in wiki voice in the opening sentence. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 12:28, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * A. Describing Murray as far-right is well-sourced and has been done over the course of at least a decade. "Neutral" doesn't mean "nice", it means describing the subject as RS do. Cortador (talk) 15:19, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * A There are clearly enough reliable sources labeling the author himself or the views he espouses as "far-right". The label in the lede is appropriate. —  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 17:42, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * B Fred Zeplin has produced a long list of citations to what are (mostly) sources meeting the standard of WP:RS. The problem is, these sources don't say what Fred Zeplin and the "A" supporters are claiming. Sources either don't describe anyone as far right or describe some other person, organisation or idea as "far right" and make a reference to Douglas Murray. Actual descriptions these sources use are as follows:
 * Stewart (2020) gives no description of Murray, only that he has written a book which "remodels a much older theory of so-called 'cultural Marxism'" and this idea "has long history in far-right thought."
 * Kundnani (2012) the single reference to Murray is as "Douglas Murray, the associate director of the Henry Jackson Society, which influences the government on national security policy", an example of the "many officials and advisors (reluctant) to recognise (the EDL) as a significant threat"; Kundnani clearly regards Murray as belonging to the mainstream political establishment along with the other example "Adrian Tudway, the police’s National Co‐ordinator for Domestic Extremism". The full article is accessible here (https://www.icct.nl/sites/default/files/2023-01/ICCT-Kundnani-Blind-Spot-June-2012.pdf) and the reference to Murray is on p.16.
 * Lux & David Jordan (2019) describes Murray as a "Media pundit, journalist, and conspiracy entrepreneur" (none of which are exactly scholarly terms) and an "'organic intellectual'" and claim his "ideas are not only entangled with the far-right (working class or otherwise), but with wider social connections." Without further clarification what this "entanglement" signifies as part of their argument, any use of this source would only be synthesis.
 * Busher (2013) lists Murray as one of a number of "Popular commentators and public figures who are [EDL] activists." The article is behind a paywall, so unless whoever added this citation can show which of Busher's actual words they replaced with "EDL" no conclusion can be drawn from this.
 * Bloomfield, Jon (2020) comes closest, describing Douglas Murray and Roger Scruton as part of the "white nationalist right", but not as far right.
 * Kotch (2018) describes Prager U as "far-right" and Murray as a "British author" whose video is on the site. Kotch does describe him as "anti-Muslim", "right-wing" and "conservative".
 * Hussain (2018) describes Murray as a "British political commentator and journalist" a "pop intellectual" and an "ideologue". The title suggests some readers of his books are far-right.
 * Ahmed (2015) is an op-ed piece (the big clue is "Opinion" at the head of the page) which describes his ideology as "rancid" and heavily implies he lacks expertise as an “expert on Islamist extremism and UK foreign policy”, but does not describe Murray as far right. Again, the full text is here: https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/white-supremacists-heart-whitehall. Please check for yourself.
 * Pertwee (2020) describes him as "conservative"
 * Kumar (2020) describes him as "conservative"
 * Mughal (2014) describes him as "neoconservative"
 * FirstPrimeOfApophis (talk) 19:29, 9 March 2024 (UTC)


 * B - Conservative (or neoconservative: he wrote a book on that) is how he's "commonly described" in the mainstream media and per WP:BLPSTYLE we should use that language. When there's cites for Reuters, AP, BBC, NYT, WaPo, etc. all labeling him "far-right" then we can (and should) say that in Wikivoice. BBQ  boffingrill me 21:24, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @BBQboffin the problem I have with "neoconservative" is that its meaning has changed over time. It seems to have meant one thing in the 1970s when Irving Kristol used the term, something else in the Bush years when Murray wrote his book, and something else again now, when self-styled "traditionalist conservatives" use it as a pejorative e.g. https://europeanconservative.com/articles/commentary/nikki-haley-and-the-neocon-kingmakers/. FirstPrimeOfApophis (talk) 21:35, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not nearly as pejorative as far-right, which the WP page lede photo visually depicts as a Nazi flag-bearer, flanked by two guys carrying Confederate flags. If we're going to label any BLP subject that we need to be damn sure we get it right, or we risk bringing the project into disrepute. BBQ  boffingrill me 22:55, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * B - Conservative is how he's "commonly described" in the mainstream media and per WP:BLPSTYLE we should use that language. When there's cites for Reuters, AP, BBC, NYT, WaPo, etc. all labeling him "far-right" then we can (and should) say that in Wikivoice. per BBQBoffin. That Murray frequently echoes and rehashes far-right views/theories doesn't alter the fact that he is not generally described thus.Pincrete (talk) 06:26, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * B - Conservative, per the excellent arguments of @BBQboffin, @FirstPrimeOfApophis, @Barnards.tar.gz. Currently the lead is already non-neutral and not in Wikivoice, unlike the leads of some controversially racist and conspiracy-theorist public figures, for example George Galloway who has repeatedly been exposed as such by reliable sources.  Mcrt007 (talk) 22:18, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * B — Let the reader decide for themselves is he is a far-right ideologue or not. Simply stating he is an author an political commentator is most neutral and appropriate. SpicyHabaneros (talk) 05:19, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * B -- There are sources to be found that describe him as either conservative or right-wing and to my mind in today's hyper-politicised environment the two often have very little difference. Conducting a quick google search I could only find one reliable source which explicitly calls him far-right (there was another story from a different source owned by the same parent company). Are the culture wars his brand of "conservative" engage in off-colour and dangerous? In my opinion yes, but that doesn't necessarily make him far-right. TarnishedPathtalk 10:56, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

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

Discussion regarding RfC close
, I don't agree with closing this as withdrawn. A number of editors have replied so it should be left open. Please self revert. Springee (talk) 22:33, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * A number of editors replied to an RfC that I didn't start. You changing the wording of the actual question is a crystal-clear violation of WP:RFC. Fred Zepelin (talk) 22:41, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * By "a number" do you mean 2? Editors who weren't familiar with the topic might assume no part of the lead mentioned "right wing".  I wanted to make sure it was clear that was already in the lead but not in the first sentence as you were proposing.  I didn't change either of your sentences.  That said I think this should be reopened so we can get a clear response to the question so we don't have to go through this again.  Springee (talk) 23:44, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Of course this RfC should not have been closed by Fred Zepelin., you were the only person besides FZ to respond before Springee changed the question. Could you please review this change and let us know if you'd have responded differently to the prior version? FZ, the conditions for an RFC ending are at WP:RFCEND. As the poster, you can withdraw RfCs, but the timing isn't right unless "consensus is reached, or until it is apparent that it won't be". And, withdrawing the RfC just means removing the RfC tag, not closing the discussion. Can you please re-open it? Springee, I've adjusted an RfC question or two in my time, and I always ping the poster. Something to consider for the future. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:29, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I will. To be clear, when I made the adjustment I noted the edit right under the RfC question  where the change and associated comment would be very apparent.  This is a practice I have seen other editors do.  At some point the comment was moved down into the discussion section.  Springee (talk) 01:37, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Responding to FFF's ping: No. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:47, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I voted B and I would have welcomed formal refutation of what Fred Zepelin had told me on March 7 ("I suspect you'll see 90% of established editors agreeing that "far-right" is the most accurate descriptor."). Alas, I do not see what part of WP:RFC allows Springee's change, it only allows "... add an alternative unbiased statement immediately below the RfC question (after the tag)." Also I don't see what part of WP:TALKO required Hemiauchenia to move Springee's additional comment that was initially below the RfC question. It seems to me that Fred Zepelin technically had a right to close early. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:55, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I was just trying to clean up the RfC question because I thought it was cluttered, and I wasn't sure if having two signatures might interfere with transclusion by the RfC bot. I think regardless of whether the RfC was closed properly or not, there's very clearly not a consensus to describe Murray as "far right" in the opening sentence, which is what ultimately matters, and I don't think letting the RfC continue would result in a different outcome. If FZ continued to argue for the inclusion of "far right" in the opening sentence based on his argument about the RfC being invalid I think that would be disruptive editing, but so far FZ isn't doing that. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:14, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * You both violated WP:TALKO and WP:RFC and that's why I closed the RfC that I began, and you modified, in violation of policy, and in an attempt to affect the discussion and the votes of other editors. This is a black-and-white case, and it is closed. Fred Zepelin (talk) 22:05, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I posted at WP:AN to hopefully get some input on what to do next. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:25, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The WP:AN discussion's now archived without action. If the RfC had been re-opened I'd have struck my !vote. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:11, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I think based on the state of the RfC when closed we can conclude there is no consensus for and perhaps a consensus against putting "far right" in the opening sentence. I don't think we should take this as an endorsement of the status quo with the term later in the lead since "remove it" wasn't a clear choice yet may reflect editor preference. Note the recent tag added (and removed) to the lead to this end. Springee (talk) 10:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * What a shock - you think that the RfC you didn't write, but edited to try and arrive at your preferred outcome, arrived at your preferred outcome? Amazing. Fred Zepelin (talk) 21:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The RfC was 12:4 against your proposed change at the time you closed it early. That certainly looks strong enough to be a consensus against assuming sound arguments on both side.  It would have been good to discuss the proposed RfC prior to opening it so we could be agreed on the wording and intent. Springee (talk) 22:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I see you're once again ignoring the fact that you changed the wording of the RfC before the vast majority of those posts were made, rendering it useless. Let's not pretend that you had some altruistic motive. I looked through your edit history. In every single discussion you get involved in, you vote to remove information you perceive as "negative" from conservatives' articles. That's not an opinion, an attack, or a violation of AGF - it's just straight facts. Every. Single. One. I have no idea how you've gotten away with that for as long as you have. Fred Zepelin (talk) 22:24, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Please FOC, not editors. Springee (talk) 22:50, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2024
Please remove this sentence:

He is an atheist, having been an Anglican until his twenties.[114][12][19] He has also described himself as a cultural Christian and a Christian atheist.[115][12]

and replace it with this one:

He has described himself as a cultural Christian and a Christian atheist,[115][12] and he was an Anglican until his twenties.[114][12][19]

It's unnecessary to call him an atheist twice in consecutive sentences. 123.51.107.94 (talk) 04:17, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank for that suggestion. Done. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:05, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

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

critics have associated his views with Islamophobia??
User:Cambial Yellowing, my problem with this edit is that the impression is left that ONLY these two academic journals have associated Murray with Islamophobia, since we normally only attribute criticism in those circumstances. In fact it's an extremely common association, made by reviewers, commentators as well as academics. It's possibly the most common charge levelled against Murray, sometimes even by people who otherwise admire him/his intellect.

I'm not wedded to the 'critics have associated …' phrasing necessarily, but your edit moves the text from framing this association in an over 'broad' fashion to an exceedingly narrow one. Pincrete (talk) 05:47, 5 June 2024 (UTC)


 * That’s a fair criticism. If the association is as widespread as you suggest (and I have seen similar charges elsewhere, as you say) then either a passive voice “his views are widely associated…..” or, if we must attribute . “academics and journalists associate”. The “critics” line, as well as not being sourced, has a similar effect to what you suggest is the issue - as you point out the charge is made by those who otherwise admire him - not merely “his critics”, actual or imagined. Cambial </i>— <b style="color:#218000">foliar❧</b> 07:05, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd argue that even a 'fan' becomes a 'critic' when they point out faults, but as I say, I'm not wedded to that phrasing. I personally don't object to the passive voice, but suspect that some editors will object to the implied 'universality' of the criticism and want to insert that its only his critics who voice such charges! Round and round we go!Pincrete (talk) 09:37, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The second problem with 'critics' - beyond that it's OR so we can't include - is that it suggests that rather than being scholars studying anti-Muslim sentiment and pointing out notable instances, the authors are interested in Douglas Murray, poor souls, and have become 'critics' of his work. We need a stable wording that is actually supported by sources. Few would deny that "academic literature" is an accurate characterisation of the journals cited (and other works ) so I thought it sufficiently bland. Ideally, given the availability of multiple scholarly sources, we can simply state this in wikivoice. If you think a passive-voice will cause endless objections, what about "Academics in sociology [and x] associate..." ? <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i>— <b style="color:#218000">foliar❧</b> 10:17, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm happy with the current phrasing, naming journals. I would also be happy with something like "Academics in sociology [and x]". But I thought "Academics" without further specification was too pointed. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 11:07, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I've just checked both academic journals and neither of them describe him as Islamophobic. The first doesn't even mention him, and the second has only this quote "Ye’Or’s Eurabia: the Euro-Arab Axis (Citation2005) is the canonical work of the genre (Bangstad Citation2013; Larsson Citation2012), but extemporizations on her basic theme can be found in the work of many conservative writers during the late 2000s and 2010s, such as Melanie Phillips, Mark Steyn, Bruce Bawer, Christopher Caldwell, Douglas Murray and, more recently, Alt-Right-linked figures such as Lauren Southern and Raheem Kassam." not, as was quoted, "Important Islamophobic intellectuals are, among others, Melanie Phillips, Mark Steyn, Bruce Bawer, Christopher Caldwell, Douglas Murray"... I think it's time to ask how many of these references were vandalism by someone who was embittered by the subject. I think we also ought to ask if it is appropriate to place all of this he-said she-said in the lede? --ChessFiends (talk) 14:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I've just checked both academic journals and the first says "Important Islamophobic intellectuals are, among others, Melanie Phillips, Niall Ferguson, Oriana Fallaci (d. 2006), Diana West, Christopher Hitchens (d. 2011), Paul Berman, Frank Gaffney, Nick Cohen, Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Douglas Murray" while the second says "they also ‘extended well beyond this niche’ to include mainstream ‘Islamophobes’ such as Douglas Murray and prominent New Atheists Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins". Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:46, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah yes I see, thanks to User:Firefangledfeathers for sending me the right versions of the papers. This is ultimately very questionable scholarship, just amounts to smearing a list of names they disagree with, but they do indeed say it. --ChessFiends (talk) 14:57, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed. KronosAlight (talk) 18:01, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Incorrect citation to Kundani (2012)
please see WP:BLPRESTORE: "When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first."

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

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


 * With regard to the EDL, there is a reluctance by many officials and advisors to recognise the group as a significant threat. For example, in April 2011, Adrian Tudway, the police’s National Co‐ordinator for Domestic Extremism, wrote in an email to Muslim groups that: ‘In terms of the position with EDL, the original stance stands, they are not extreme right wing as a group, indeed if you look at their published material on their web‐site, they are actively moving away from the right and violence with their mission statement etc.’ Similarly, in January 2011, Douglas Murray, the associate director of the Henry Jackson Society, which influences the government on national security policy, stated that, in relation to the EDL: ‘If you were ever going to have a grassroots response from non‐Muslims to Islamism, that would be how you’d want it, surely.’ Both these statements suggest that ‘counter‐jihadist’ ideologies, through reworking far‐Right narratives and appropriating official discourse, are able to evade categorisation as a source of far‐Right violence.

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

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


 * Do you not understand the passage the source quotes from Murray, that would be how you’d want it, surely, as an example of "counter-jihadist ideology" being appropriated by "official discourse"? That's how I see it. If you'd like something in the article more nuanced than "linked to far-right political ideologies", I'd support that. However, it seems clear to me that the passage in question deals with the work done by the ideologies through the officials - the ideologies rework narratives and appropriariate discourse (though, e.g., Murray's comments) - it isn't the EDL that does so. I don't think you are reading the paragraph as intended. Newimpartial (talk) 16:48, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It's extremely clear Murray is one of the the "advisors" who doesn't recognise the EDL as a significant threat. That's why the author talks about his role influencing government policy, and highlights a statement where Murray says he doesn't consider the EDL very threatening. Exactly how he highlights Tudway, a government official, who also said he doesn't find the EDL threatening. I'm really quite confused how this could be misinterpreted. Endwise (talk) 17:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Saying that a group represents the kind of backlash "you want" goes a good deal beyond saying Murray doesn't find it threatening. This is a counter-jihadist ideology appropriating official discourse, is it not? Newimpartial (talk) 19:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

LIKERESUME tag?
can you clarify? A list of publications for which the subject writes seems to be common for articles about journalists, e.g. Owen Jones He writes a column for The Guardian and contributes to the New Statesman, Tribune, and The National and was previously a columnist for The Independent or Deborah Ross Her work has appeared regularly in The Independent, the Daily Mail, and The Spectator. She is a columnist and feature writer for The Times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FirstPrimeOfApophis (talk • contribs) 07:46, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * KronosAlight added the cite, thus citing an article in The Sun by Douglas Murray to support a statement that Douglas Murray had written for The Sun. David Gerard removed it mentioning deprecating and WP:NOTRESUME. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:37, 23 June 2024 (UTC)


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


 * Lists like this should be referenced to independent RSes to be present in the articles at all, they're very obviously a resume. If the entries are noteworthy, they will have been noted in RSes; if they have not been noted in RSes, but only in a deprecated source talking about itself, then they're not facts we should care about - David Gerard (talk) 20:07, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * David Gerard's edit summary's mention of WP:NOTRESUME was irrelevant since WP:NOTRESUME is actually about how Wikipedia editors should not use the site to tout themselves. I'd favour putting back the cite and removing the tag. But consensus is required. So who else is definitely for or against doing so? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:05, 24 June 2024 (UTC)


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


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


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


 * I and Pincrete and FirstPrimeOfApophis agreed that the Sun cite should be put back and the tag removed; I'm not sure about KronosAlight. If anyone changes their mind within a few days and decides David Gerard's later addition of a cite to deadline.com is as acceptable, or if someone else thinks so, please say so. Otherwise I'd say we have consensus. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 01:49, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I've been attempting to reduce this article's over-use of primary sources for at least a year, if not more. If the best source you can find for something is a primary tabloid, it's a very good sign that it doesn't belong, yes even if it is ABOUTSELF. Including this kind of thing without context from a reliable source does very much make the article more like a resume. Grayfell (talk) 06:19, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Grayfell, it's now a 3rd party source corroborating DM working for the Sun, not the greatest source, (Deadline article about a Bill Maher programme) but 3rd party. Pincrete (talk) 07:57, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * On one hand that's true (and your edits in that direction were excellent), but on the other hand, if he's a columnist for The Sun, that feels relevant to mention in his biography regardless of secondary coverage. It's not exactly self-serving. In my opinion all the WP:ABOUTSELF criteria are met, and it's worth noting, given how it fits into the main thing he's known for (opinion & commentary). DFlhb (talk) 11:05, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This sort of information seems completely due. We have a commentator/columnist.  Where their work has been regularly published seems absolutely due.  The Sun had published a list of his columns it seems reasonable to use that as proof he has written for the Sun.  This is not a contentious claim nor a writer's opinion or analogy about DM.  It's a simple fact and completely relevant in a BLP.  Given his career is basic boiler plate content. Springee (talk) 10:39, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Peter, I'm sure you've had it pointed out to you previously that a few people can't just assert a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS on a talk page as an end run around a broad general RFC. If you took it to the appropriate venue, WP:RSN, do you think your argument would convince? - David Gerard (talk) 08:46, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Mr Gerard, when possible I'll follow what PAGs say rather than what you say about them. As for WP:RSN I recall that you went to it in March with Reviews from unreliable sources which led to RfC: Entertainment coverage of the New York Post (including Decider and Page Six) where you were part of a minority. However, in this thread I interpret Grayfell's and Pincrete's latest remarks as support or acceptance of the deadline.com cite, so the consensus for reverting your edits is gone. That matters, so they stay for now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter Gulutzan (talk • contribs) 15:17, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Your interpretation of my comment is wrong. Our goal isn't to drop factoids, it's to provide context. A passing mention in a source doesn't provide any context, nor does it in any way demonstrate that this factoid is important enough to be in the lead without being mentioned in the body. Summarize his career in the body and then summarize that in the lead proportionately. Grayfell (talk) 20:08, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Do you have an opinion re: the Sun cite should be put back and the tag removed? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:43, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The lead should follow the body. Use reliable, independent sources to explain his career as a columnist in the body first (in Douglas Murray (author), presumably), and then we can reevaluate how to summarize this in the lead. If necessary, passing mentions, primary sources, and dubious or outright unreliable sources could be considered to fill in basic details in the body, but only if necessary. If the only source for The Sun is the passing mention in Deadline, than this doesn't appear to be significant enough to mention in the lead even if it is mentioned in the body. This standard should be applied to every outlet. If a reliable source doesn't mention Unherd, for example, it doesn't belong at all either, but especially not in the lead. That would be one actionable step towards fixing the long-running resume problem. Grayfell (talk) 03:24, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * We are told that The lead section should summarise with due weight the life and works of the person (MOS:BLPLEAD). It seems evident to me that in summarising the life and works of a journalist, someone who writes articles for publications, we should say what those publications are. WRT due weight, we are only talking about a single sentence. WRT RS, as Pincrete notes, the sources are reliable for the claim being made (that DM wrote articles for the publications in question).
 * Can somebody opposed to Peter Gulutzan's proposal point to the actual policy indicating that this information is inappropriate for the lead? If not, this would seem to be a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. FirstPrimeOfApophis (talk) 11:51, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You, yourself already cited MOS:BLPLEAD. Due weight is decided by reliable sources, not individual editors. Proclaiming that this is "evident" is not persuasive in the slightest. Grayfell (talk) 20:23, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * In general terms I agree with Grayfell that this article has a long-term tendency to simply 'echo' DMs punditry, sourced to his own writings. HOWEVER, in this specific instance, as the man is a professional 'commentator/pundit' a short sentence listing the main publications to which he is a regular contributor, seems like basic biog info. As long as it is verifiable, and as long as it is kept brief as we are only listing the main publications, I don't see the problem. Isn't this normal on journalist's articles?Pincrete (talk) 05:12, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Which qualify as "main" and which don't? Passing mentions and primary sources are both bad for determining this. The Times and the Telegraph? Okay, sure. The Free Press, and Unherd? I'm dubious. He is prolific, so indiscriminately mentioning many outlets acts as a subtle form of promotion. We need context and that context should come from WP:IS, same as always. Grayfell (talk) 20:53, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Re actual policy that including is inappropriate. All I've seen is David Gerard's WP:NOTRESUME irrelevance, Grayfell's reference to "due" which presumably is about WP:DUE but it doesn't become undue just because Grayfell says so, and David Gerard's claim that WP:LOCALCONSENSUS applies but the RfC is not policy and anyway was concluding "generally unreliable" which obviously isn't the case here. There might have been allusions to WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY as well but it's just an essay. I'd like to add on our side that WP:WHYCITE says "You also help users find additional information on the subject ..." which applies for citing The Sun since users would indeed find additional information about the writing in The Sun, something which the vague listing-free mention in deadline.com does not provide. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:11, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Again, our goal should be to summarize in the body according to due weight and then briefly summarize that body for the lead. Right now, very few of the many outlets he has written for are mentioned in the body of the article, so their significance cannot be explained. Rhetorically speaking, how often does he write for these outlets? How many of these columns are unique to one outlet and how many are republished by multiple tabloids? To present this information without any context is inviting readers to ask questions that we have not bothered to answer, and it looks like name-dropping to make his output seem more prolific and more impressive, which is a violation of NPOV.
 * Citing reliable sources is to help readers understand the topic and to prevent these kinds of petty disputes over what is and is not due weight. As I said, due weight is decided by sources, not by editors. I didn't cite WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY, and dismissing it as an essay smells like wikilawering and ignores the point I was trying to make. If you really insist on a wikilink for this, per Manual of Style/Lead section: ... As in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources. Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article. Is any particular tabloid vitally important enough to be a "basic fact"? Clearly, we differ on this, but I do not accept that The Sun, Unherd, etc. are all equally important basic facts that do not require any additional context or explanation. The way to fix this problem would be to explain in the body, per reliable, independent sources, where he has written. After that, a source in the lead won't even be necessary per MOS:LEADCITE. Grayfell (talk) 20:53, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * We differ and you don't accept so I count you as opposing. At this point I believe that opposers are David Gerard + Grayfell, supporters are FirstPrimeOfApophis + Peter Gulutzan + Pincrete + DFlhb + Springee + maybe KronosAlight. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:14, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Please add me to the list of supporters. The tag should be removed and the Sun cite restored. The article does not read like a resume. The subject's writings were evidently regularly published in the Sun. BBQ  boffin<b style="color:#F00">grill me</b> 23:55, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I put back the cite and removed the tag. The proposal has about 3-to-1 support from editors in this thread, plus support from PAGs as mentioned. I think that further edits -- removing David Gerard's insertion of deadline.com, shifting the sentence to the body which seems to be compatible with Grayfell's remarks, undoing other recent changes -- should perhaps also happen, but this change is only what was proposed. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:48, 7 July 2024 (UTC)