Talk:The Madness of Crowds: Gender, Race and Identity

News sources
Two sources, providing two sets of viewpoints:


 * https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/sep/19/the-madness-of-crowds-review-gender-race-identity-douglas-murray


 * https://www.ft.com/content/f79a4b38-d961-11e9-9c26-419d783e10e8

— Srid 🍁 02:08, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

"Mostly positive reviews"
It's often hard to judge the critical reception of non-fiction books given how polarized today's media climate is, but I changed my original designation of The Madness of Crowds as "polarizing critics" to "mostly positive reviews". The only outright negative review I could find was from from the Guardian, while most others offered at least cautious praise. If there are more negative reviews out there feel free to change it back to "polarizing". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noteduck (talk • contribs) 06:42, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

There is some back and forth on this point in the editing history at the moment, so I think it's reasonable to set out why I think a more accurate description of the reception is "mostly positive" rather than "mixed". Firstly, within the context of the article itself and the reviews cited, the ratio of positive to negative reviews is 3:1. Secondly, a wider search for negative reviews of the book reveals very few. In fact the only prominent publication to have given a negative review of the book is The Guardian, which is already referenced in the article. I would argue on this basis that a neutral observer would conclude "mostly positive" to be a fairer reflection, and that this is also consistent with the sources in the article. "Mixed" suggests a more or less even spread between positive and negative, or perhaps (colloquially) even more negative than positive, neither of which is supported by the facts. Those keen to suggest the reception was mixed should provide sources to back up this assertion; until and unless they can "mostly positive" is a reasonable description.Artem188 (talk) 18:15, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * If you're going to say, Those keen to suggest the reception was mixed should provide sources to back up this assertion, then don't remove the high-quality sources you have asked for. Newimpartial (talk) 19:14, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Political pigeonholing in the lede
The reversion to political tagging was partly justified by the the book sounding right-wing. No, the summary makes it sound perfectly centrist and reasonable. Questioning cultural activist over-reach is not the same as being right-wing. It's highly debatable whether the writer is conservative as well, it only appears to be left-wing journalists that think so. I've had a quick look at some similar wiki pages on books and can't see this policy of describing the politics of a writer in the lede in left-leaning ones. Please offer pointers to examples or a wiki policy, otherwise I think it should be removed as there is a risk that it will be seen as an audience-limiting "warning". It's enough to describe him as a British journalist and political commentator, the other is opinion, irrelevant and seemingly inconsistent with general Wikipedia practice. Conan The Librarian (talk) 22:10, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Just worked out how to tag you. I've reverted the change for the reasons given. Conan The Librarian (talk) 14:47, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

You've reverted my change without addressing my comments above. Please will you do so, giving a clarification on why they are incorrect in each case. Conan The Librarian (talk) 15:07, 3 January 2021 (UTC)


 * He is conservative, he is described as such in RS, and should be described as such on WP. There is no reason why this fact should be omitted from readers who are reading this page. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:16, 3 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Agreed. There's no question that he's conservative - maybe he'd call himself neoconservative, but that's all. He's known as a conservative writer. We don't suggest right-wing and I wouldn't try. I'd never call the National Review (or the late Bill Buckley (I recall a very pleasant chat with him), right-wing.  Doug Weller  talk 16:09, 3 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the replies but I note my concerns about the seeming imbalance between the pigeonholing approach here and that of books by equivalent left-leaning authors is unaddressed. However as my sample size was small, I'll assume I was incorrect on that point for the time-being. My "right-wing" comment was in response to the reference in your reversion (and within the context of ongoing derogatory categorisation by others on the author's bio page) and I appreciate your clarification.Conan The Librarian (talk) 14:55, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

It seems to me the question here is whether it is within accepted practice to identify an author's political stance in the opening summary of one of their books and whether those wishing to do so are seeking to inappropriately frame the article in a particular way. For me, the place to identify the politics of a book is in a description of the book itself, not the author, otherwise someone's perception of the book is prematurely skewed by how the author's politics are described. Additionally, looking at a British political writer on the opposite side of the spectrum to Murray - Owen Jones - there is no comparable identifier of Jones as a liberal/left writer in the lead to the article about his book, Chavs. A consistent approach is necessary here to ensure political neutrality.Artem188 (talk) 18:24, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Additional, high-quality critical reviews must also be taken into consideration for WP:DUE. As far as the OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument goes, I think referring to an author as "conservative" whose first book was Neoconservatism: Why We Need It is in no way leading or misleading; leaving out relevant context would be WP:WHITEWASHING, in this case. Newimpartial (talk) 18:36, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * There is literally only one negative review. You may not like the fact that it was positively reviewed, but those are the facts. Numerically is has many many more positive reviews than negative. Mixed is therefore simply wrong.
 * The relevant context is not left out, the summary of the book clearly says what is it. The point you haven't addressed id the normative aspects of whether it is usual to identify an author in this way. It isn't. Such identifiers of an author are common to reviews of a book, not neutral descriptions of them. Artem188 (talk) 18:50, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I just linked for you two additional, critical RS reviews here, and added one such mention to the article, which you then removed. You are now over the WP:3RR bright-line; if you do not self-revert, the next step is WP:3RRN. Newimpartial (talk) 19:04, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You are also well over that line; I don't know why you think that only refers to me. The truth is you had no answer to the points I raised and simply undid accurate revisions. The facts are against you. You may be interested to know that whilst the TLS may have negatively reviewed the book, The Times itself gave it a positive review. Positive far outweighs negative, numerically. Your ideological need to believe otherwise is sad. Don't do that. Artem188 (talk) 19:20, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, I have reverted three times today (stopping before the redline); you have reverted four times and I have therefore filed at WP:3RRN. You may believe that The facts are against me, but that isn't a reason to remove RS from the article not a justification for you to violate WP norms in service of your POV. The strength of your belief in your own rectitude is not an excuse. The point you kept making, over and over again, was that "there is only one negative review", but in consensus reality there are at least three, high-quality critical reviews. Reality doesn't care about your feelings. Newimpartial (talk) 19:37, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Newimpartial, with respect, you have overreacted dramatically here. I was attempting to debate civilly with you on the talk page and you started block capping me and one-line undoing my reasonable edits. The removal of the additional negative review you cited was an error and is a fair addition by you. Your insistence that this equated to a mixed reception is not. The strength of your believe in your own rectitude is not enough, either, I'm afraid. Providing additional negative reviews, whilst legitimate, doesn't negate the fact that fair view of the reception indicates it received far more positive than negative reviews. You are entitled to your own feelings, but not your own facts. Artem188 (talk) 19:52, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Scholarly disguise
"The book examines issues of sexual orientation, feminism, race and transsexuality." Unfortunately I can't access the cited source, it's possible that it presents it as such if it's conservative. When I read this sentence, I see the disguise of a political rant as a scholarly investigative discourse... — Paleo Neonate  – 15:56, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Laver, 2021


Free, scholarly book review by a professor of political science at NYU. Could be useful for building the article. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:52, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

WP:BALANCE in the lead section
Artem188, why would you include a positive review from the Times while removing a critical one from the Times Literary Supplement? Helping to confirm your priors, maybe? Newimpartial (talk) 19:44, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * That's a bit unbalanced. --StellarNerd (talk) 20:01, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Inclusion of Joe Rogan in reception section.
The inclusion of Joe Rogan's perspective in the "reception" section seemed unusual to me. The other perspectives in the section are from reviewers/editors/academics and published by reliable sources. Are there good grounds for including Rogan? Hanne Thato (talk) 06:41, 18 January 2024 (UTC)


 * In the absence of other comments, I have removed this quote as Rogan is not a critic and it does not fit with the other perspectives. Hanne Thato (talk) 00:36, 6 February 2024 (UTC)