Talk:Douglas Murray (author)/Archive 5

"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? 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) Update: ZScarpia has expressed sympathy, Hob Gadling has accused removers of edit warring, and Dlthewave has removed a comment by Conan The Librarian. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:32, 31 July 2021 (UTC)


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

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, 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 [].  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)


 * Having done some hunting round the Web, Noteduck's comment of 9 June that "it is absolutely within the spectrum of mainstream academic opinion on Murray to refer to him as a 'white nationalist'" looks likely to me to be true. There seems to be a variation in the way that white nationalism is defined. Cristina Ariza of the Centre for Analysis of the Radical Right, for instance, divides the radical right into racially-motivated and culturally-motivated parts, with white nationalism being part of the former and having antisemitic undertones. Using that more extreme definition, Murray fairly clearly doesn't qualify. However, others single out his promotion, in all but name, of the idea of white replacement. Nafeez Ahmed in Le Monde Diplomatique: "Pundits with mainstream airtime or print space refer to the replacement theory, without giving it that name. Among them is Douglas Murray, associate director of the Henry Jackson Society (HJS), who wrote a book claiming that immigration, identity and Islam are driving the ‘death of Europe’, and an article in which he said London ‘has become a foreign country’ in which ‘“white Britons” are now in a minority,’ because of the ‘startling rise in Muslim infants’." Note that Ahmed states: "This theory of ‘white genocide’ is rooted in antisemitic writings from the Nazi era and has been repurposed by the far right to focus on a claimed Muslim biological, cultural and political takeover of western civilization." Jonathan Portes, professor of Economics and Public Policy at King's College, London: "The most obvious example of this comes from Spectator associate editor Douglas Murray, who claims – very much like Powell and Scruton – that 'Europe is committing suicide' by allowing Muslim immigration. His recent book, The Strange Death of Europe, is essentially an intellectual version of the 'great replacement' conspiracy theory advocated by white nationalists here and the US – that liberal elites are plotting the demographic transformation of Western societies. Unsurprisingly, therefore, Murray shares Scruton's views that immigrants and their children – if they're not white – can't 'really' be British.  He warns of 'white Britons' becoming a minority in 'their own capital city' and claims London has become a 'foreign country'."       ←   ZScarpia  23:56, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I have to say I disagree. I fail to see how Jonathan Portes or Nafeez Ahmed are somehow being proof of calling them white nationalists. Not only that, but quotes given are either at best misquoted if not outright lying by the two on Murray and Scruton. Neither one claims that non-white cannot be true British citizens nor does Murray argue that liberal elites were plotting "demographic transformation" one of the major points of the SDOE was that politicans and leaders kept kicking the immigration can down the street cause none of them wanted to either touch it or thought that the problem would solve itself. Given the BLP status of the subject, these only make it more clear to me that the article should be removed. 3Kingdoms (talk) 02:32, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Neither Portes nor Ahmed are being used by us in relation to white nationalism claims, so this is all huff & puff frankly. Portes is used to say that "Strange Death" echoes a far-right conspiracy theory (the source says that the theory is "advocated by white nationalists", but we don't quote that, so we are if anything playing down that aspect). Ahmed is being used to say that Murray appears to be only concerned with far-right freedom of speech. They don't either of them misquote Murray or Scruton AFAI can see - what I think you probably mean is that they come to conclusions about Murray and Scruton's words which you don't agree with and/or don't consider to be fair. I'm going to avoid countering your WP:OR with my WP:OR as it is simply a waste of time, Portes ishere for those who are interested in knowing whether the way we use him is fair and honest and proportionate. Pincrete (talk) 09:26, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * ZScarpia wrote "Having done some hunting round the Web, Noteduck's comment of 9 June that "it is absolutely within the spectrum of mainstream academic opinion on Murray to refer to him as a 'white nationalist'" looks likely to me to be true." As evidence he cites these two articles, I'm not sure how you think this is "huff and puff" Its not OR to point out a false claim. Ahmed claims Murray/ Scurton to support the white replacement theory, which is refuted by simply reading Murray's views. Given that we are dealing with a BLP this is pretty clear that we should pretty skecptical of using some of these sources. 3Kingdoms (talk) 19:09, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * No, No, No again. Reading Murray's views is NOT what we do to assess a source, it simply isn't workable. The only questions are is the source generally reliable, are we accurately summarising what the source claims and how much weight do we give it and other sources, based on a whole bunch of criteria NOT including whether we personally think it is true or fair. I apologise if I misunderstood that you were responding to Noteduck ZScarpia . I thought you were referring to how we use Portes and Ahmed in the article and I stick by what I said about neither of them lying nor misquoting. You - and some others- simply don't like the sources' conclusions. I agree with some conclusions, disagree with others, but all seem to be within a reasonable range of responses.  Pincrete (talk) 21:55, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I would prefer to say yes, maybe, maybe again to 3Kingdoms. It might be okay for Pincrete to follow a different path (I'm guessing it's based on some unspecified PAG), but it's okay for 3Kingdoms to look at what Mr Murray actually said. A person is an acceptable source for the fact that a person said something, WP:ABOUTSELF. In fact it is the best source if we're quoting, WP:RS/QUOTE, and making claims about what Mr Murray said is indirectly quoting. Possibly Pincrete thinks that the claims are "analysis" or "interpretation" (for which a secondary source would indeed be appropriate), but analysis or interpretation of what? Positing that the source is wrong may be application of a real guideline -- WP:RSCONTEXT -- if the source's assertion has no context or contradicts what's known from elsewhere, in which case it's arguably too poor a source to be allowed per WP:BLP. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 01:00, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I feel as those we are talking around each other Pincrete so I'll try and be clearer. The issue I have raised is Bloomfield's article calling Murray and Scruton "White Nationalists" I argue this is both fringe and undue weight. ZScarpia cited Portes and Ahmed's articles as proof that it is reasonable to call Murray a White nationalist. I objected to that by pointing to what I consider the failings of both articles, which is that Neither of the two have said "non whites" can't be British or that the demographic changes in Europe are because of an international conspiracy to destroy "white people". Thus I do not consider these articles as proof that Bloomfield's view can be considered mainstream or due, and if anything I question them being used as well, but that is a different discussion. Claiming that the objects to the article are just people not liking the conclusions is unfair and ignores the issues raised such as BLP and undue weight. Finally you are right we are not talking about Murray's views, but we also have to see if a source is being fair with the person especially for a living persons, which to my mind the articles in question are not. 3Kingdoms (talk) 01:18, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * My intervention here isn't my finest hour on Wikipedia. I suspect that I might just have confused things further and so perhaps it would be best just to ignore what I've written. It's not quite accurate to say that I was arguing that "it is reasonable to call Murray a white nationalist," but trying to explain exactly what I was trying to say probably wouldn't help reach a resolution. Having wondered whether the statement in the Political Quarterly article was an anomaly, on searching, I found material which, while not actually explicitly calling Murray a white nationalist, pointed at reasons why people, depending on how they defined white nationalism, might see him as such.
 * Not being able to read the full Political Quarterly article is a handicap and I still find the sentence, "the white nationalist right like Roger Scruton and Douglas Murray reject that," puzzling. If it's trying to state that the white nationalist right reject the British cross-party consensus, naming examples, why choose Scruton and Murray rather than people who would fairly indisputably be seen as white nationalist? In the context of the counter-jihad material I've read, I'm wondering whether the sentence's meaning should really be read as something like: "Like Scruton and Murray, the white nationalist right reject that." Therefore, it's correct construal isn't actually that Murray is part of the white nationalist right. Given that, in the absence of other sources explicitly stating that Murray is part of the white nationalist right, my current recommendation would be not to include content in the article stating that Murray is seen by one commentator as being such. However, it might be better, if editors who have actually read the Political Quarterly article and have a better grasp of how Murray's detractors see him disagree, if my opinion is ignored.
 *    ←   ZScarpia  09:04, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Peter Gulutzan, " A person is an acceptable source for the fact that a person said something", yes of course they are and we regularly use people's own words - mostly for trivial biographical facts and of course I or any other editor can read whatever we want to clarify things in our own minds. But that isn't what is happening. Approximately what is being argued is that Murray or Scruton have never said EXACTLY what the source says, therefore the source is invalid, and doesn't know what it is talking about. So Murray's own words are being used to invalidate a source, even though the content is inherently interpretive rather than factual. Concrete example, Portes summarises a longer argument by saying that for Scruton "Not only is immigrant integration very difficult, but, in the case of Muslims at least, it is logically impossible, even for the British-born children of immigrants". That is Portes' interpretation of these words, and others, from Scruton, which Portes quotes: "Like the White Queen in Through the Looking Glass, they [liberal politicians] practiced the art of believing six impossible propositions before breakfast, including the proposition that pious Muslims from the hinterlands of Asia would produce children loyal to a secular European state." So no, Scruton never says "you can't be brown and British" - but beneath the elegant phrasing, there is clear scepticism about the likelihood of Muslim descendants "fitting in", and of the naivety of anyone who thinks they can or will. So, should the Portes source be jettisoned because it summarises Scruton in a way that an editor disapproves of -even though we don't quote the disapproved of text? No one thinks either Scruton or Murray is a "white nationalist" in the sense of leading gangs of thugs to beat up Antifas/Pakis, but quite a few WP:RS think both are articulating gentrified versions of the same thinking. The only question to me is how do we most clearly represent the full spectrum of that response to Murray - much of which is from subject specialists. 3Kingdoms, I'm sorry, but it does come down to the fact that you don't agree with these sources, therefore the sources must be wrong - not that they are interpreting the available info differently from you. One example I give above. Mainstream in this context means what most reliable/reputable academic sources, or most journalistic sources have written. It doesn't mean what either of us might think a 'reasonable' political position should be.
 * Peter Gulutzan, " A person is an acceptable source for the fact that a person said something", yes of course they are and we regularly use people's own words - mostly for trivial biographical facts and of course I or any other editor can read whatever we want to clarify things in our own minds. But that isn't what is happening. Approximately what is being argued is that Murray or Scruton have never said EXACTLY what the source says, therefore the source is invalid, and doesn't know what it is talking about. So Murray's own words are being used to invalidate a source, even though the content is inherently interpretive rather than factual. Concrete example, Portes summarises a longer argument by saying that for Scruton "Not only is immigrant integration very difficult, but, in the case of Muslims at least, it is logically impossible, even for the British-born children of immigrants". That is Portes' interpretation of these words, and others, from Scruton, which Portes quotes: "Like the White Queen in Through the Looking Glass, they [liberal politicians] practiced the art of believing six impossible propositions before breakfast, including the proposition that pious Muslims from the hinterlands of Asia would produce children loyal to a secular European state." So no, Scruton never says "you can't be brown and British" - but beneath the elegant phrasing, there is clear scepticism about the likelihood of Muslim descendants "fitting in", and of the naivety of anyone who thinks they can or will. So, should the Portes source be jettisoned because it summarises Scruton in a way that an editor disapproves of -even though we don't quote the disapproved of text? No one thinks either Scruton or Murray is a "white nationalist" in the sense of leading gangs of thugs to beat up Antifas/Pakis, but quite a few WP:RS think both are articulating gentrified versions of the same thinking. The only question to me is how do we most clearly represent the full spectrum of that response to Murray - much of which is from subject specialists. 3Kingdoms, I'm sorry, but it does come down to the fact that you don't agree with these sources, therefore the sources must be wrong - not that they are interpreting the available info differently from you. One example I give above. Mainstream in this context means what most reliable/reputable academic sources, or most journalistic sources have written. It doesn't mean what either of us might think a 'reasonable' political position should be.


 * ZScarpia, your intervention was fine and this isn't the only source that connects Murray and "white nationalism" - but as with so much else. sources tend to say that he echoes/mirrors/promotes/parallels right-wing ideologies, rather than he IS this or that. I think we should all drop arguing about individual sources or 'labels', recognise the different between saying "academic A says Murray is a cucumber (with reasons)" and "Murray is a cucumber" and find ways to summarise the (fairly widespread) criticism of him. Pincrete (talk) 09:49, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * it might help to recall exactly what some editors are trying to accomplish. The idea that Murray is a "white nationalist" is not currently in our article via support from the Political Quarterly article; removing text along those lines is not what people like 3Kingdoms are trying to do.  What they are trying to do is remove the Political Quarterly article as a source, currently used only for the idea that some academic sources are criticising Murray (currently appearing in footnote #10).  Now that might strike you as ridiculous -- and if it does, good, because ridiculous it is.  They want to exclude the source -- that's all.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:57, 4 August 2021 (UTC)


 * [EC] Currently the first sentence of the Criticism section reads: "A number of academic and journalistic sources have linked Murray's ideology and political views to the far right (including the Eurabia conspiracy theory), the alt-right, the Islamophobic right or some combination thereof."
 * Previously, citing Bloomfield, that sentence made direct references to the white nationalist right, for example: "A number of academic and journalistic sources have linked Murray's ideology and political views to the far right (including the Eurabia conspiracy theory), the alt-right, the white nationalist right, the Islamophobic right or some combination thereof."
 * I did think that this discussion was about keeping mention of links to the white nationalist right out of the article's body, rather than excising any reference to Bloomfield's Political Quarterly article, which is currently restricted to the footnotes, altogether.
 *    ←   ZScarpia  11:22, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It's a bit of both. I am opposed to throwing up scarlet letter associations but not Political Quarterly specifically.  However, I think that specific article is a poor choice for inclusion if it's only mention of Murray is the passing comment in question.  That would mean exclude it per DUE, not RS.  If it has other more germane content then it include it for that.  Springee (talk) 12:00, 4 August 2021 (UTC)


 * , I think your text, using Scruton as an example, does a nice job capturing why people have an issue with the text we had in the article. Continuing to use Scruton as an example, a sentence saying Scruton is "linked to white nationalism" is open ended and can imply he supports groups like Neo-Nazis etc.  Based on your text above his concern is not race specific, rather it's a cultural (based presumably on religion and region).  Rather than presenting a "sound bite" summary including key words like white nationalism, we should present his position and why others oppose it.  That is both impartial and more informative to the reader.  Part of the problem in discussions such as this editors see the same thing but interpret things differently.  Some editors feel that if a summary oversteps the facts we should remove it as a BLP violation.  Others feel that any removal is automatically an intent to protect the subject and thus should be resisted.  Both views have legitimacy.  Removing too many of these short bits can whitewash a subject.  However, leaving too many in does result in an article that violates IMPARTIAL and fails the "do no harm" aspect of BLP policy and associated guidelines.  In reality I think most editors in most cases both sides are actually happy to find a middle ground.  Something like Pincrete's analysis of Scruton but for Murray would be that middle ground.  It clearly states the position and why other sources take issue with it while avoiding letting the user's imagination run away with terms like "white nationalist".  Certainly we have seen cases where ugly terms like "racist", "-phobe", "left/right-wing" etc are applied to people as a way to label them so their ideas can be dismissed out of hand.  If our intent is to inform we should avoid such labels as we may not know the full motivation behind their application.  Instead we should present the reasons and counter arguments so the reader is better informed.  Springee (talk) 11:17, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Springee, short answer is that Scruton is a red-herring, I only referred to him to make the point that a legitimate interpretation of someone's writings may not be the same as what they literally wrote - but he's both irrelevant to Murray and dead! Besides, anyone who doesn't know the controversy around whether Scruton was a harmless old reactionary or a dangerous ideologue hasn't picked up an English newspaper in 50 years. That is like knowing about Enoch Powell, but not knowing what he is most famous for. So it's not going to be a surprise that Scruton is so accused, whether you love him or loath him (or feel both as many do). I'm happy to see a more holistic approach, but I'm sorry if I suspect that "do no harm" = anodyne. There are reasons why Murray is controversial (not many people suggest deporting British born people, or the descendants of migrants for example, if they break laws or oppose the UK govt or its allies - as Murray has done, and since he is too bright to not know that this would be illegal and unworkable, we have to assume he was aware that it was incendiary). I appreciate Springee that you have been fairly consistent in arguing BLP and DUE, but the truth is that any accurate summary of the academic and journalistic response to Murray needs to have some meat on it, which precludes avoiding terms widely used by the sources, just because they might be misunderstood. Pincrete (talk) 12:04, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Not being very well informed about the article's topic, I would have stayed out of the discussion if I hadn't been for the surprise I felt seeing Murray being described as part of the White Nationalist right, he not really fitting either my own understanding of that movement, which had largely been gained reading news articles on that subject during the Trump era, or the description given in the Wikipedia article devoted to it. I felt that the Political Quarterly's classification thus could well be anomalous. Doing some research largely negated that hypothesis. Depending on how loosely or tightly White Nationalism is defined, it's possible to see how some commentators could see Murray's pre-occupations as matching. See, for instance, the Immigration, Muslims and 'white Britons' section of Powerbase's article about Murray. I'd guess that there's also a perception that Murray is a bit partial when it comes to accusations of racism. Given some of his views, supporting Charles Moore as a candidate for BBC chairman must cause some to question his judgement.
 * Using the argument that properly sourced points of view should be excluded on the grounds that they are untrue is a non-starter. But, similarly, stopping a defending point of view being included on non-policy-based grounds would be impermissible.
 * The "counter-jihad movement" is one way of describing the nexus of linked "Islamophobic" organisations and individuals. A source discussing that movement in detail which does not appear to have been mentioned so far is Hilary Aked, Melissa Jones and David Miller of Public interest investigations' report "Islamophobia in Europe: How Governments are Enabling the Far-Right ‘Counter-Jihad’ Movement". It mentions Murray multiple times, including in the observation: "Here lies the counter-jihad movement’s alarming strength: it is a ‘spectrum’ with ‘street-fighting forces at one end’ (such as the english Defence league) and ‘cultural conservatives and neoconservatives writers at the other’ (from Daniel Pipes to Douglas Murray)."
 *    ←   ZScarpia  01:35, 1 August 2021 (UTC)  {THIS is my own personal image of what a dyed-in-the-wool white nationalist looks like.}
 * I get where your coming from, the main issue I have is that given his BLP status and other such issues having articles calling him a "white nationalist" particularly when they are not even about him in some cases comes across as mudslinging and ultimately unneeded. 3Kingdoms (talk) 19:15, 3 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Like, 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)


 * Paul Robeson had socialist/communist beliefs (I'm not sure exactly where on that spectrum, but it wouldn't be very strange to call him part of a socialist strand of the civil right movement of his own time) - that is fairly indisputable. Equally indisputable is that Robeson was not a Communist or a Socialist, not in terms of being a member of any organisation and most certainly NOT in terms of the perjorative, stereotypical, manner in which the term was commonly used in the US in Robeson's time, to imply someone blindly committed to serving the interests of the USSR and to treasonously undermining those of the USA. So there is a concrete example, the adjectival use is miles away from the noun, certainly in its crudest use.


 * I'm not trying to minimise what the source says. Bloomfield is saying that defining British citizenship and British identity in terms of ethnicity is a "white nationalist" position and that Murray does this, which most political commentators of the past 50 years have not done. I don't see how anyone can deny that Murray thinks a person can't, or that populations don't become fully "British" (or any other European nationality) if they are from an Islamic culture, whereas they don't represent such an existential threat to British-ness if they are from a christian/liberal culture. Murray's is a 'cultural-religious' perspective rather than a strictly ethnic one, but functionally they are the same thing. I don't see what is controversial about Bloomfield thinking/saying that, nor why it is worse than "some people think he is Islamophobic" or any of the other criticisms. Bloomfield is describing an intellectual position and of course ISN"T saying that Murray wanders the streets wrapped in a Confederate flag or a Union Jack, looking for people to intimidate - which is the cliché image of white nationalists. 'Nationalist' is a very irregularly used term of course, Scottish nationalists are OK, Irish nationalists less so, black nationalists are not too bad, but white nationalists carry a mountain of negative baggage.


 * This discussion isn't about whether WP should describe Murray as associated with a "white nationalist right", since no one has even sought to do that. It's about whether Bloomfield making such a link should be 'let in' as part of the criticism from academia. I'm sorry but this discussion started with "Murray isn't a white nationalist, therefore the source must be bad". It returns to it again and again, whether overtly or some other way. Others are engaging in WP:OR to say "Murray isn't white nationalists", or "white nationalist right is worse than 'far-right'", so I'm OR-ing to say that Bloomfield's is actually a perfectly rational position. Rather than "throwing the whole kitchen sink", I wish Bloomfield had used a term that prompted a less visceral reaction. But Bloomfield's substantive point stands IMO and is rather better sourced and more clearly phrased than the vague "Murray's-writings-are-a bit-like-some-conspiracy-theory-that-most-of-us-have-never-heard of" kind. Pincrete (talk) 09:54, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The problem is such material carries a clear implication. It's like asking if someone was arrested for beating their spouse.  Even if they never did anything of a kind the implication is there.  This is a BLP so such leading implications should never be included.  If we don't have solid sources making a clear claim then we need to leave it out. Wikipedia BLP aren't supposed to be yellow journalism type muck racking. Springee (talk) 12:36, 24 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the polite response Pincrete, although I have a few issues with it. One regarding Robeson, his article does not include a source in the heading calling him a socialist or communist, instead it simply reports Robeson's well documented left-wing beliefs that caused him to be blacklisted or considered to be on somewhat supportive of the USSR. Second white nationalist is considered indistinguishable from white supremacy, which regardless of what he is saying, Bloomfield makes it sound like Scruton and Murray are the same as the British National Party, thus as a BLP this should not be included. Third the article for Murray and his works have both negative and positive reviews on them which to my mind shows mixed reaction that Murray gets without having a loaded label like white nationalist. Finally I do not agree with the statement that Murray reduces identity to simply ethnicity, Murray's issue involve the alleged radicalization of Europe's Muslim population and alleged failures of its assimilation policy, both of which have been echoed by mainstream politicians in Europe. Now of course Murray might be wrong and counter articles to his claims can be posted, but to have one calling him and one of the most mainstream intellectuals in modern British life a white nationalist is too my mind a bridge too far being both fringe and Undue weight given once again the article is not even about them. I understand and get your frustration that Bloomfield used a label that he should not have that undercuts what you think is a good article, but at the same point he choose to use that and given the above it should not be included. Thanks and have a good day. 3Kingdoms (talk) 17:35, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think that Bloomfield "used a label that he should not have" - though I acknowledge that he would have helped us if he had used a term which people don't react to so viscerally, but he clearly thinks that linking citizenship and ethnicity is white-nationalist in character and he was writing in an academic source, not a popular paper. "Bloomfield makes it sound like Scruton and Murray are the same as the British National Party" - oh please! If we go down that route, then a term can only ever be used in the bluntest and crudest sense in which it might be understood. We mustn't ever say Person A describes Person B as anti-semetic (with reasons or context) because the reader might think that person B has started to build gas chambers!


 * I'm sorry, the logic goes round and round in circles based not on is the source sound (and the claim tenable), but rather "do I agree (with the claim)", and if not, Bloomfield shouldn't have said it and the reader is not allowed to read it. None of this explains why anyone thinks that saying that Murray is Islamophobic (ie has an irrational antipathy to Muslims and Islam) is OK, but saying that his definition of citizenship is intrinsically "white nationalist" is off-limits. Pincrete (talk) 22:57, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * As I said before white nationalist is treated the same as white supremacy so him calling them that is him putting them in the same group as the BNP, I am not sure how you could think that is a stretch. 2. "he clearly thinks that linking citizenship and ethnicity is white-nationalist in character and he was writing in an academic source, not a popular paper". An academic paper not even about the the two in question. 3. "We mustn't ever say Person A describes Person B as anti-semetic (with reasons or context) because the reader might think that person B has started to build gas chambers!" We don't label everyone critical of Israel or anti-Zionist anti-Semitic, because obviously many are not that. Same here just because Murray has issues with the two items I mentioned above that does not make him a "white nationalist". Some people might think that he is, but just cause they do does not make it true or worth including. Finally Murray does not link citizenship with ethnicity, he has on repeated occasions praised immigrants and refugees who he believes have embraced and assimilated to European society like Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Salman Rushdie.Again people might think that he is being to exclusive in praise and maybe they are right, but even that would not make him a white nationalist. Nor does he question the citizenship of people like Maajid Nawaz. So no he does not think that just because you are not white you cannot be a citizen of a European country. 3Kingdoms (talk) 15:46, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I actually wrote "I don't see how anyone can deny that Murray thinks a person can't, or that populations don't become fully "British" " … if they are from Islamic countries etc - that maybe is what he/you would call the "failure of multiculturalism". But I will try to resist responding further, since we are still discussing it as if the issue were "Is Bloomfield correct about Murray?", rather than "is Bloomfield a WP::RSd valid example of criticism of Murray from academia?." Pincrete (talk) 08:30, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * And that is not what Murray thinks. 3Kingdoms (talk) 15:26, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

I have watched this article for quite a while, I probably added it to my watchlist because I saw Noteduck editing it and it seemed mildly interesting. Here is a short summary of the reasoning that has been brought up against the source. I struck out the obviously irrelevant ones: So, it has been mainly meaningless noise. Regarding the three remaining items: Pincrete is right, the logic goes round and round in circles. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:50, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Baselessly calling the source "fringe"
 * Changing the subject by talking about Obama being a socialist
 * Going on further tangents regarding his relationship with the Tories
 * Source is not due because it mentions Murray only in passing
 * "Number of editors opposing", as if this were a WP:VOTE
 * "A number of academic and journalistic sources have linked Murray's ideology and political views to" is somehow OR regarding this source, but not the others. Or maybe the others too
 * It's a BLP, we should err on the side of not doing harm
 * Academic sources have been wrong about Ford Pinto
 * I once saw a similar case on the Tucker Carlson page
 * "A number of academic and journalistic sources have linked Murray's ideology and political views to stuff" is an extraordinary claim and needs better sources than a number of academic and journalistic sources who have linked Murray's ideology and political views to stuff
 * Since the article only mentions the source in passing, the source only mentioning the article subject in passing is OK.
 * Intransparent.
 * By that reasoning, we should remove all criticism from all BLPs. Actually, this one sets in if it turns out that the source is too weak.
 * I'm sorry analogies are lost on you. Your analysis perhaps can also be added to the meaningless noise bucket?  You are correct, consensus isn't a vote but when enough editors start raising objections it's better to assume their is vs isn't merit there.  Springee (talk) 10:57, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * That is just an attempt to reintroduce the voting concept while paying lip service to not using it. Argumentum ad populum is still a fallacy and still invalid, and real reasoning is still needed and not provided. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:18, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You claiming no "real reasoning" is not the same thing as no real reasoning. Springee (talk) 17:47, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I would like to say that I never called Obama a "socialist" I posted a reliable source (Forbes) that has an article calling him such. This was to show how even reliable sources can post things that are factually incorrect or wrong and should not be used like calling Obama a socialist or Murray & Scruton white nationalists. 3Kingdoms (talk) 01:08, 26 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)
 * The discussion above now has a number of editors weighing in and there is no consensus to include the content. Per NOCON, "or contentious matters related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify, or remove it." Springee (talk) 12:28, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * "Results in". So, you think the ongoing discussion already has a result, and it is the result you like. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:45, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * More accurately, you are saying that you know what the result will be, since all you have to do is persist - no actual reasoning needed - and you will get the result you like because there is no consensus. Therefore, there is no need to be patient and wait until that actually happens, because you are confident in the power of wikilawyering and filibustering. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:04, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It might help to add a key word: "often results in...". The meaning changes when we quote it that way.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:14, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, it doesn't always result in removal but removal is the typical solution. Springee (talk) 03:53, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No, as Springee points out, the bold edit was introducing without consensus career-traducing and exile-invoking terminology in the first place - which fits a very disturbing pattern that has been present throughout the history of the wider edits here. Please let's at least be straight about where the initial provocation for most of the heat started.Conan The Librarian (talk) 10:16, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

All, thanks for the effort on both sides to discuss this issue seriously. I note the source at question here is countered in a later issue of the same publication, but I don't have access.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1467-923X.12811

I suspect it raises the same general objections that have been voiced here and - I think here is an underlying concern for opposing reasons on both sides of this discussion - no doubt apply to many of the sources used in this article to attack Murray using extremist language and categorisation as opposed to fairly countering his actual writing. Conan The Librarian (talk) 08:26, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Here's the full text of the (only) paragraph where Murray is mentioned:

"'The stock evil character in this Punch and Judy show bears various names: ‘hard-core right’, ‘hard right’ (two mentions), ‘nationalist right’ (three), ‘traditionalist right’,‘far right’, ‘UKIP right’, ‘extreme right’ and ‘white nationalist right’ (a.k.a. Roger Scruton and Douglas Murray). The tale involves the ‘reactionary’ villain trying to take progressive humane Britain back to the monochrome 1950s, before gay rights, women’s liberation,ethnic diversity and anti-racism. Give the small-‘c’ conservatives an inch, and before you know it, gays will be back in the closet,women in the home, and minorities on the next plane out. The supposed quislings on the centre-left who reflect seriously on both the evidence on what drives national populism and where the globalisation thesis has gone wrong—such as by exploring ideas like slowing the overall pace of immigration or questioning  the  multiculturalism  policy framework—are either complicit in the hard-right’s evil plan, or have become their useful idiots. The progressive left must oppose this plot with every fibre of its being.'"
 * That's a whole lotta hand-waving. If we wanted to use it in our article to counter the point made by Bloomfield, then fine -- though at first glance it isn't clear to me what we'd use.  In any event, it reinforces the case for using Bloomfield -- it's evident that the publication in question has gained attention.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:37, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quotation (though my concern is also with the weight of the Bloomfield essay as a whole, in addition to the Murray specifics). I don't see the hand-waving - it pretty clearly restates what we who are opposed to shutting down of discussion via caricature and extremist categorisation have been pointing out all along; and reinforces the point that Bloomfield is hopeless as an authority here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Conan The Librarian (talk • contribs)
 * Funny -- I've had the same view about Eric Kaufman for many years now -- really quite hopeless. Now, I don't intend to let that view lead me to attempts to suppress him on Wikipedia; in the end it's just disagreement.  Perhaps you'll join me in that journey towards NPOV?  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:19, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no "suppressing" of evidence the only thing that would change if the change occurs is one less (poor) source that is already bundled with 5 other ones. No change would occur regarding the actual text of the article. 3Kingdoms (talk) 15:53, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Nomos, If you will point me to an article where editors are trying to get a mainstream or centre-left writer suppressed via equivalent tactics as here (eg quoting tracts by obscure activist right wing hacks labelling them as Stalin apologists or whatever), I'll be happy to vote for UNDUE WEIGHT again. I look forward to you engaging in that same impartial consideration. Conan The Librarian (talk) 18:58, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You're letting your bias show. Why is Bloomfield a "hack"?  The only cause you have for that description is that you don't like what he is saying.  That's tough shit.  In the end it will be very difficult to exclude a source published in a peer-reviewed academic journal; it is exactly the sort of source we are meant to rely on.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:20, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Not at all the only cause; a quick google of some of the referenced writers here (Bloomfield an example) using extremist terminology to cancel people like Murray reveals - as expected - cookie-cutter examples of dull, echo-chambery left-wing tweets, retweets and blogs in their normal online presences. I also note you side-stepped my offer of help "on the other side" to demonstrate the impartiality I am requesting from you in this case - both responses frankly severely undermine your attempt here to profess the moral high ground wrt bias. Conan The Librarian (talk) 20:34, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Adding to Conan I would note that the peer-reviewed article is not about Murray or Scruton. Futhermore digging into Bloomfield's history reveals a rather fringe set of views. 3Kingdoms (talk) 01:16, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * "digging into Bloomfield's history reveals a rather fringe set of views" . Good grief, you don't need to even dig to discover that Rod Liddle has a history of being fined for contempt of court, being publicly censured - and sacked I believe - all for basically very careless PoV-ish journalism - including making false claims relating to race and crime. Nonetheless he wrote a review of "Strange Death" in The Times which we (quite rightly) quote from. We don't ask for character witnesses for information published in WP:RS - it would be unworkable if we did. Pincrete (talk) 08:51, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Liddle is cited for a "review" basically were simply including him to show what he thought. Bloomfield is cited as proof of Murray being connected to the far-right. If you think Bloomfield should be cited as an expert then we ought to look at his background. 3Kingdoms (talk) 15:24, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No No No, Bloomfield is cited as someone who thinks Murray's definition of citizenship is mirrored by (in a specified manner) that of the ethnic nationalist right. But even if we were doing what you say - ex-SWP members are allowed to have opinions, communists and former communists have been known to be competent or to say something worth saying. Witch-hunting is both morally repellant and wholly unworkable as a method of solving disagreements here. Pincrete (talk) 16:05, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * If a former member of a fascist party calls someone on the Centre-left a communist in an article that mentions said person in passing it would likely be labeled fringe. I never claimed that he can't have an opinion just that he has a long history of fringe views which evidently goes up to today by calling Scruton a white nationalist. Please don't put words in my mouth. Finally going back and forth about what Bloomfield thinks is not helpful to the discussion, it does not matter what he meant, he calls Murray and Scruton "White Nationalists" in an article that is not even about them. It is undue weight. Lets focus on that. 3Kingdoms (talk) 17:14, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Policy based reply, expressed better than I could here. Pincrete (talk) 18:05, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Does not address point about the article not even being about the two. 3Kingdoms (talk) 18:33, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Because there is no requirement that the article should be about them - though it would be strange for us to base a large amount of content here on a small amount in the source, but we don't. In a list of connections made by academic sources, this supports the briefest of mentions. Pincrete (talk) 10:02, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Mentioning two people in passing, where one is BLP, and calling them white nationalist and then using it has a source in one of their articles is a perfect example of Undue weight especially when there are plenty of other betters sources already there. 3Kingdoms (talk) 12:04, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Can we please work with a better understanding of where things are
you think I am reverting Pincrete's removal, but I'm not -- that edit stands. You are going further -- and you appear not to understand it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:18, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Not quite, but nothing I have said suggests that I endorse 3Kingdoms's edit nor gave them permission to use my name to justify their edit. The linked edit was explicitly hoping to 'kill off' an IP's vandalistic edit-warring and did NOT endorse the version I restored to on either a temporary or permanent basis. I thought that was clear at the time, but if not it is now. Pincrete (talk) 12:43, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The IP editor was putting text in the article (considered by some to be "undue"). I am only restoring the source.  Apologies for not being clearer about this.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:58, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No problem. Pincrete (talk) 13:04, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Springee wrote "Per NOCON, "or contentious matters related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify, or remove it." I misread Pincrete's removal as also meaning that they agree it should be removed for the moment not just the vandalism they were reverting. My bad. regardless Springee is correct and was the only one to have brought up a rule to support why it should be removed for the moment, which I also support. 3Kingdoms (talk) 20:17, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:NOCON applies in situations when the discussion is finished and has resulted in no consensus. It is not for removal for the moment. During the discussion, WP:BRD applies. Since the discussion is still going on, and the material in question had been there for a while, the deleters were edit-warring, not the undeleters. Applying NOCON amounts to WP:CRYSTAL: you think you already know the result. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:29, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * This discussion has gone on for a while. We have a number of editors on both sides and both sides have policy compliant arguments for/against.  Why wouldn't we consider this a NOCON case?  Springee (talk) 17:33, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Correction. One side has a policy compliant argument for keeping the old version until the discussion has been resolved, and the other side only pretends to have them. When the discussion is finished, THEN you can consider it a NOCON case. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:36, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Please keep the comments respectful. This content was disputed when first added.  It was only people tiring of the discussion, not a reaching a consensus that resulted in the material being in the article.  The question has come back and after an extensive discussion the result is on no consensus.  Springee (talk) 17:45, 29 July 2021 (UTC) Correct on->no typo Springee (talk) 17:57, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, you are declaring the discussion finished with a consensus ? Do your former opponents know they are now part of your consensus ? Adapted to correction --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:51, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Don't assume bad faith. 3Kingdoms (talk) 19:19, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Clarification: Pincrete was not edit-warring, just bending over backwards to accommodate the edit-warriors. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:36, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * None of us were "edit-warring". Springee is the only one to have brought up an actual rule which is why we have tried to remove it for the time being. All you have done is accuse Springee of bad faith and try to smear others as edit warring. Please stop it is not helpful to the discussion. 3Kingdoms (talk) 19:18, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * He "brought up a rule", true. A rule which did not apply to the actual situation. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:44, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * And apropos "did not apply": The discussion seems to have died down now and has resulted in no consensus, so WP:NOCON applies now. So, now would be the right time to delete the text. The point is moot though, since it has been deleted prematurely in violation of the rules. So, we can finish this section with the remark that some people never admit mistakes and other people back up their allies no matter what. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:55, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * In your opinion it didn't apply and in your opinion the objections aren't valid. I don't agree.  The DUE concerns and I would add IMPARTIAL concerns do apply.  The comments about allies and never admitting fault, yes, I've seen that.  Springee (talk) 10:53, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Additional information on the writer of the piece
Having done some digging into Jon Bloomfield reveals that he originally a member of the Socialist Workers Party (UK) and later the Communist Party of Great Britain supporting the Eurocommunism faction which led to the creation of the Communist Party of Britain. While some former supporters accuse him of "selling" out to Tony Blair. It seems to me more reason to consider the "fringe" view of the article. Plus as mentioned before the article is not about Murray. 3Kingdoms (talk) 01:27, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * "Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist Party?" - Pincrete (talk) 09:01, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hmm -- wait -- is he "fringe" because of having been in the SWP? Or is he fringe for having become a Blairite?  IT'S SO CONFUSING!!  Please enlighten me...  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:02, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Your source is a blogger who remains loyal to Stalinism, who reports negatively on Bloomfield's involvement in his late 20s, over four decades ago, in a faction of the CPGB that pulled it away from Stalinism towards mainstream politics, noting that by the 1980s Bloomfield was solidly in the mainstream centre-left. That's a weak way of claiming someone is fringe. Among the charges the blogger brings are: "Bloomfield returned to old interests in 1989, when he covered the so-called `Velvet Revolution’ in Czechosolvakia for The Guardian." "He was both Head of European Policy at the West Midlands Regional Development Agency and Honorary Lecturer in the School of Public Policy at Birmingham University." "He appears to now be totally involved with the University of Birmingham’s Institute of Local Government Studies." In other words, every indictment of the author from this blogger should underline how un-fringe the author is. Whatever his politics were in the 1970s, he is now widely published in mainstream outlets, and the leading UK political science journal,Political Quarterly, peer reviewed and published this particular article. While there are valid concerns about due-ness, this attack on a source as fringe because of positions they took half a century ago is totally out of order. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:35, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * If a person was a long time member of a fringe group as in Bloomfield's case and he push a fringe view, "Scruton is a white nationalist" it is reasonable to question both due and fringe regarding the author. I was simply pointing out some of Bloomfield's history because Nomo and Conan had a back and forth on him. I also know the blogger himself was fringe, but he had a decent run down of Bloomfield's political history, including him support for New Labour. It was never intended to be a source. 3Kingdoms (talk) 15:36, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Starting a line of argument by assuming what you want to prove, in this case that what Bloomfield said about Murray is "fringe", is frowned upon by serious scholars. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:53, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:FRINGE. Our policy is not that someone who was in a small far left political party four decades ago is automatically fringe today even though now published in reliable sources. Our policy is that views with little representation in reliable sources should be considered fringe and not given weight. Clearly the view that Murray's "views and ideology have been linked to far-right political ideologies" is not fringe, as there are several academic sources who make this link. If our article was to devote space to a claim that Murray is a white nationalist, you could argue that that claim was fringe because only one academic source makes it. However, that's not what anyone is arguing for, so it gives the impression you're just throwing mud at a source who says something you don't like, which is not a good strategy here. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:56, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It was precisely the absurd, fringe "Murray is a white nationalist" claim in the article that kicked off this particular thread, what the hell are you talking about?? WRT googling against the activist vs googling against Murray, it's almost like there is a double-standard or something... Conan The Librarian (talk) 06:42, 27 July 2021 (UTC)